Sola Scriptura from the Protestant - not Catholic - View

[Salvatore123]

And John, to go even more “basic”, I bet everyone in seminary discussing the sermon never once discussed how the bible upon which the sermon was based came to be . . .

I am hoping that bogeydogg comes back and answers my questions.

So far, he has acknowledged two very important things that protestants do not usually do when discussing sola scriptura:

1. He acknowledged that the bible did not suddenly appear, already written by God - the bible was written by human beings inspired by the Holy Spirit to write down God’s word.

and

1. He acknowledged that the bible is not “self authenticating” - one of the most fallacious unsupportable “arguments” that one has ever conceived. I would have thought that educated people would realize that an inanimate object cannot authenticate itself. Yet, they follow the classic logical fallacy of “ipse dixit”: “It is true because I say it is true”, and then they really expect people to fall in line and believe such nonsense.

So bogeydogg has “given in” on the above two “obstacles” that so often plague a discussin of “sola scriptura”.

I just hope he comes back and answers my last set of questions, because I believe that is where “sola scriptura”, which is supposed to be, as he claims, “the final arbiter of religious disputes”, will come crashing down because it was built on sand instead of rock.

Without the bible being handed to man by God already written, human beings were necessarily needed to recognize the canon of both the OT and NT.

My aim is to get him (or any other protestant following this thread) to point to me to those human beings, their names, their authority, and when they “canonized” the bible. Simply saying that “the Apostles recognized the scriptures” does not work, as no NT canon of scriptures existed while the Apostles were alive. The NT books were still being written as each of the Apostles suffered a martyr’s death for Christ.

 

[Utmost]

bogeydogg,

P.S. - and yes, THIS discussion is “fun” because it seems we are finally discussing “sola scriptura” at a really deep level that is so often ignored in other threads, where the discussion quickly leads to ad hominem attacks and quickly degenerates into people attacking one another.

As long as we proceed as we have so far, I think you will become Catholic yet

I agree with your P.S. Thanks Salvatore123 for your openness on this issue. If ‘sola scriptura’ is a Protestant concept, then one must use the definition that they give to it (and I think you have done exactly that!) and not what someone else decides so that it can be easily knocked down.

 

[bogeydogg]

Salvatore,

I already said the history of the Church tells us that even in the home churches there were some book recognized as Scripture and some not. I believe God byt he Holy Spirit oversaw the compiling of the books in that the Bishops, who were men called to a Holy Vocation, were guided by the Holy Spirit to canonize the NT books.

I don’t argue with this at all. The reason I didn’t list which council it was is because I cannot remember it off the top of my head.

I could Google it but… meh…

However I think it is important to realize that what the Bishops did was simply accept what was already acknowledged by the churches which comprised the Church. The compiling however was done sometime after Marcion and Constantine so it had to be 4th century. However we have list s from the Church Fathers which predate any council which lay out the NT as we have it today with very minor disagreements usually over the Apocalypse or one or more of the Catholic Epistles. If you want me to say that the Church’s authority established the Canon I would not argue the point, however since we both agree that the Holy Spirit oversaw the entire process and God selected the Canon using a human agent, then the authority in question was ultimately God’s. Thus the Church did not create the Canon God did.

Concerning authority…

While you have not said that the authority fo Scripture is derived from the Church, I have had this discussion more than once with other Catholics who have said exactly that and i feel this is no small part of this discussion. I could not disagree more on the question of authority. We only know the Church is authoritative because the Apostles, in the Scriptures, tell us Christ founded the Church. Therefore the authority of the Church comes from the Scriptures. So to say that I am being unclear, as guanophore did, in saying that the Church cannot speak to the authority of the Scriptures arising from the Church since it is the authority of the Church which arises from Scripture, I think is strange. It seems quite obvious to me that the only way the Church (which ultimately is comprised of the Body of Christ and not buildings or institutions) can have authority is in the faith of those who believe (they being the Body of Christ) the Apostolic Confession which is found in the whole of the NT. To believe the Apostles is to believe the NT. The NT tells us the Church was founded by Christ and thus the Church’s authority comes from Christ, therefore the only way to know the Church has authority is by Scripture Alone.

All tradition is derived from Scripture. This does not mean it is invalid or of no authority it just means it is below Scripture. So when I read Augustine I remind myself that here is a great man of God a saint someone to be emulated, one for whom we can give God much thanks, but His writings nevertheless are beneath Paul’s for example because he is commenting on Paul and freely acknowledges that He is beneath Apostolic Authority as is the Church by sheer force of the fact that to be in the Church is to believe the Apostles.

I hope that was clearer.

God Bless

PS As far becoming a Catholic I am not actually averse to the thought at all but there are a few key Doctrines I struggle with(the ascension of Mary and her as co-redemptrix, the transubstantiation, the reoffering of the sacrifice of Christ in the Mass, the infallibility of the Papacy speaking ex cathedra) which, to Rome’s Credit, prevent me from being Catholic. However if God in his grace continues me along in the path I have gone (I used to believe the sacraments were symbols and no priest could forgive sin and baptism did not forgive sin) then I will not say I would never be Catholic.

 

[inkaneer]

Salvatore,

I already said the history of the Church tells us that even in the home churches there were some book recognized as Scripture and some not. I believe God byt he Holy Spirit oversaw the compiling of the books in that the Bishops, who were men called to a Holy Vocation, were guided by the Holy Spirit to canonize the NT books.

I don’t argue with this at all. The reason I didn’t list which council it was is because I cannot remember it off the top of my head.

I could Google it but… meh…

However I think it is important to realize that what the Bishops did was simply accept what was already acknowledged by the churches which comprised the Church. The compiling however was done sometime after Marcion and Constantine so it had to be 4th century. However we have list s from the Church Fathers which predate any council which lay out the NT as we have it today with very minor disagreements usually over the Apocalypse or one or more of the Catholic Epistles. If you want me to say that the Church’s authority established the Canon I would not argue the point, however since we both agree that the Holy Spirit oversaw the entire process and God selected the Canon using a human agent, then the authority in question was ultimately God’s. Thus the Church did not create the Canon God did.

Whoa there pardner. You are not going to get away with that one. The fact is that the reason the bishops developed the canon was that there was no agreement on which books were inspired. And let’s acknowledge one other fact here. The canon was developed so that the church in all locales would know which writings were suitable for use in the liturgy of the Eucharist *. The Bible was intended by those same bishops to be a liturgical book and not some self study guide to christianity.

Now as far as the question of authority I think it is quite clear that authority can be delegated. Scripture tells us that Jesus gave authority to his disciples to heal and to cast out unclean spirits [Mt 10:1]. The question becomes whether Jesus delegated authority to his church. That He did is abundantly clear and is testified to in Scripture. Jesus gave the power to bind and loose on earth as well as in heaven [Mt 16:19]. So while the authority ultimately comes from God it is man in the form of the church that is wielding the authority.

P.S. Consider those words Jesus used in Mt 16:19. What does it mean to bind or loose something on earth and at the same time in heaven also. Consider, if you will, the president of the United States. Aas powerful as he is, with all the authority at his disposal, can he bind or loose something in heaven? No, he can’t. But this authority was given by God to a fisherman from Galilee and the scriptures testify to it.*

 

[bogeydogg]

And so you make my point. Of course the Church has authority I have never questioned that, I said we know of this authority because the Scriptures testify to it. Thus the authority of the Church arises from the Scripture and not the other way around.

I know there were disputes about Canon but I have heard EWTN folks say quite clearly that the questions concerning Canon were not over whether books such as the Gospel of Thomas belonged there was really no question of that, but rather that the Canonizing of the Bible by the Bishops began with those who were refuting Marcion who had severely edited down the Gospels and Epistles because he didn’t think much of Old Testament and wanted to separate NT religion from it. So in receiving what the practice concerning Scripture already was in the Church the Bishops refuted Marcion who was trying to change tradition concerning Scripture and that was in 144 AD which is pretty early on by anyone’s calendar.

We know this because Pre-Nicene Fathers told us and some such as Justin, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian all gave lists of the accepted books of the NT among which were the four Gospel, the Pauline letters and then there was some dispute over the Catholic letters. But with such wide agreement so far back it seems strange that you would seem to say that there was no or little agreement concerning Canon before the councils.

God Bless

 

[Salvatore123]

bogeydogg,

I want to address what you said, one step at a time, with the hope that I can at least posit one post whose contents with which we can both agree.

1. Canonization of the NT Scripture

Salvatore,

I believe God, by the Holy Spirit, oversaw the compiling of the books in that the Bishops, who were men called to a Holy Vocation, were guided by the Holy Spirit to canonize the NT books.

I don’t argue with this at all. The reason I didn’t list which council it was is because I cannot remember it off the top of my head.

However I think it is important to realize that what the Bishops did was simply accept what was already acknowledged by the churches which comprised the Church.

If you want me to say that the Church’s authority established the Canon I would not argue the point, however, since we both agree that the Holy Spirit oversaw the entire process and God selected the Canon using a human agent, then the authority in question was ultimately God’s. Thus the Church did not create the Canon God did.

Please indicate if you agree with the following statements, based on my (and thus, my Church’s) beliefs, as well as what you said above:

A. God, from the beginning, had “in mind” a set of words that he wanted to deliver to mankind so that mankind would be able to read, study, and refer back to those words as the words of God.

B. As God did not deliver his words “pre-written”, nor did he write them himself in the presence of a man (except in one instance - provided that one believes literally the way the Ten Commandments were delivered to Moses - by God’s own hand), God, through the Holy Spirit, selected certain men, inspired those men, and although God was the true author, he used the “uniqueness” of each man to pen God’s words into books, reflecting not just God’s words, but also the writer’s style of writing.

C. Many, many books were produced by many different men - some were inspired by God through the Holy Spirit, whereas others were not.

D. To ensure that mankind received only the truely inspired word of God, God inspired men to form a group(s) and gave that group(s) authority to declare which books were inspired and which were not - that is, he authorized them to formulate a canon.

E. The group(s) given authority by God to declare the canon of the NT (I will leave the OT out at this point, because it has its own “problems” not necessary to the discussion of “sola scriptura” at this point) met several times, in several areas, in an attempt to establish that the NT canon comprised 27 books, and ONLY 27 books.

F. Although some men who attended these various “meetings” (called councils or synods) disagreed on the initial canon of 27 NT books, eventually, the majority of those meeting at the councils and synods agreed on a 27 book NT canon - and that 27 book NT canon is the one that all Christians have as part of the bibles today.

Summary

In sum, God, through the Holy Spirit, inspired different men to “pen” his inspired words, and then, again through the Holy Spirit, authorized a group or groups of men to review all of the various books that people were claiming to be “inspired”. With the aid of the Holy Spirit, and through much debate and several meetings (called councils and synods), a group of men inspired by God through the Holy Spirit declared that the NT canon should comprise 27 books, and those 27 books are the same 27 NT books we have in our bibles today.

Thus, in the end, although I (and my Church) readily admit the following could not have been done, and was not done, without inspiration from God through the Holy Spirit, it is a fact (or, to satisfy some - a “belief”) that men, nevertheless, were ultimately the ones responsible for culling, out of all the various books floating around with authors claiming they were inspired, only those books that truly were inspired by God and thus reflected his holy word. This culling resulted in a 27 book NT canon that we Christians today call our New Testament.

I am hoping you agree with everything I just said. If not, please specifically state each assertion I made above with which you disagree.

I will wait on your response before moving to the next section of your last post to me which you referenced with the word “authority”.

Again, thank you for participating and thank you for your patience. I am hoping that if we proceed slowly and orderly, we will reduce the chance of misunderstanding and quickly reduce any areas of disagreement to isolated points we can “debate” later.

 

[PJM]

=bogeydogg;7860749]Salvatore,

I already said the history of the Church tells us that even in the home churches there were some book recognized as Scripture and some not. I believe God byt he Holy Spirit oversaw the compiling of the books in that the Bishops, who were men called to a Holy Vocation, were guided by the Holy Spirit to canonize the NT books.

I don’t argue with this at all. The reason I didn’t list which council it was is because I cannot remember it off the top of my head.

Ist. Council of Niceia in 325; * and it ties in with Constantine and the temporary end of religious perscution.

*I could Google it but… meh…

However I think it is important to realize that what the Bishops did was simply accept what was already acknowledged by the churches which comprised the Church. The compiling however was done sometime after Marcion and Constantine so it had to be 4th century. However we have list s from the Church Fathers which predate any council which lay out the NT as we have it today with very minor disagreements usually over the Apocalypse or one or more of the Catholic Epistles. If you want me to say that the Church’s authority established the Canon I would not argue the point, however since we both agree that the Holy Spirit oversaw the entire process and God selected the Canon using a human agent, then the authority in question was ultimately God’s. Thus the Church did not create the Canon God did.

Concerning authority…

While you have not said that the authority fo Scripture is derived from the Church, I have had this discussion more than once with other Catholics who have said exactly that and i feel this is no small part of this discussion. I could not disagree more on the question of authority. We only know the Church is authoritative because the Apostles, in the Scriptures, tell us Christ founded the Church. Therefore the authority of the Church comes from the Scriptures. So to say that I am being unclear, as guanophore did, in saying that the Church cannot speak to the authority of the Scriptures arising from the Church since it is the authority of the Church which arises from Scripture, I think is strange. It seems quite obvious to me that the only way the Church (which ultimately is comprised of the Body of Christ and not buildings or institutions) can have authority is in the faith of those who believe (they being the Body of Christ) the Apostolic Confession which is found in the whole of the NT. To believe the Apostles is to believe the NT. The NT tells us the Church was founded by Christ and thus the Church’s authority comes from Christ, therefore the only way to know the Church has authority is by Scripture Alone.

Both the CC and the Bible get and maintain their authority from God Alone. The Church did give the Bible to the World, and much like all salvation HAS TO flow through the Cc; so too, right understanding must also flow through the CC and conform to HER teaching and undertstanding IF one is seeking the singular truth.

Last of the Apostles does not infer “less-than”. Paul, a humple of Servant of God knew his contributuion and his place as being second to Peter. Paul was the most educated in religious matters, and the most articulate in Teaching our Faith.

Tradition can be RECOUINTED in Scripture; but Scripture cannot be the source of Traditions. Traditions pre-ceed the Bible dates of authorship by a signifiiant number of years.

Each of these concerns has a explaination. If you’d like more info just PM me.

God Bless you BOTH!

GREAT discussion

Pat

 

[guanophore]

 Sola scriptura "works" for protestants because they think, whether they realize it or not, that God is either incapable of guiding fallible men into all truth for 2,000 years or they think that somehow fallible men will wrest control of God's church from God and introduce the dreaded "traditions of men" instead of true doctrine,  There is no other alternative.

This is very true, and the question that none of them are able to answer. What happened to the powerful Jesus we see in Revelation, corrrecting and guiding His Church?

The premise requires that Jesus could not find one single Catholic that was faithful, obedient, and embraced sound doctrine through which He could work to correct His Church.

All this comes as a result of denying Church authority even though such authority is scriptural. After all it is scripture that calls the church the pillar and bulwark of truth. Scripture makes no such claim for itself. The best scripture can claim for itself is that it is ‘profitable’ for teaching, etc. so that man can be equipped to do good works. It never comes close to linking scripture with salvation.

I have seen the early Fathers refer to Scripture also as the pillar and ground of the Truth. I thnk it can also be shown that Scripture can, and does, lead to salvation.

Yet, if we did not need a Church to get us there, Jesus would not have established one.

The irony of this all is that protestants have no problem with accepting and embracing such doctrines as the canon of scripture or the Trinity. Both of which are the products of men not scripture. As much as they would like to say that the Trinity is scriptural the fact is the way they understand the doctrine of the Trinity is definitely nonscriptural. Th

I have heard them say that they are not “of men”, but of God. But I have also heard them say 1) that the canon is a fallible collection of infallible works (may not be accurate) and 2) The Catholic Church just happened to get it right (like unto a broken clock that is right twice a day. 3) In spite of the errors and apostasy in the Catholic Church, God worked a miracle through it to produce the Bible, then abandoned the “corrupt institution” and replaced the Church with real christians.4) Catholics did not “create” the bible, but “discovered” it.

is the result of men trying to explain the unexplainable. Since the doctrine is not contained in scripture but was devised by men, it is then, as according to protestants way of thinking, a “tradition of man.” Yet they accept it, embrace it and even defend it,

They would say that it IS contained in Scripture (since, on this issue, they look at Scripture through the lens of Sacred Tradition unknowingly). Transubtantiation has the same method behind it, but they generally reject that.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
All this comes as a result of denying Church authority even though such authority is scriptural. After all it is scripture that calls the church the pillar and bulwark of truth. Scripture makes no such claim for itself. The best scripture can claim for itself is that it is ‘profitable’ for teaching, etc. so that man can be equipped to do good works. It never comes close to linking scripture with salvation.

I have seen the early Fathers refer to Scripture also as the pillar and ground of the Truth. I think it can also be shown that Scripture can, and does, lead to salvation.

Yet, if we did not need a Church to get us there, Jesus would not have established one.

The caveat being that scripture can lead us to salvation if properly interpreted. That requires interpretation in the church. extra ecclesia nolo salus

And they would be so very wrong for saying it. Thias is protestantism at its finest. When the sola scripturist is required to go outside of scripture into the land of the traditions of protestant men in order to defend a demonic doctrine.
[/quote]

 

[bogeydogg]

In sum, God, through the Holy Spirit, inspired different men to “pen” his inspired words, and then, again through the Holy Spirit, authorized a group or groups of men to review all of the various books that people were claiming to be “inspired”. With the aid of the Holy Spirit, and through much debate and several meetings (called councils and synods), a group of men inspired by God through the Holy Spirit declared that the NT canon should comprise 27 books, and those 27 books are the same 27 NT books we have in our bibles today.

Thus, in the end, although I (and my Church) readily admit the following could not have been done, and was not done, without inspiration from God through the Holy Spirit, it is a fact (or, to satisfy some - a “belief”) that men, nevertheless, were ultimately the ones responsible for culling, out of all the various books floating around with authors claiming they were inspired, only those books that truly were inspired by God and thus reflected his holy word. This culling resulted in a 27 book NT canon that we Christians today call our New Testament.

I would have probably said some of it differently but I don’t think there is a substantial disagreement between us.

I am uncomfortable with the notion that the men determined the Scripture but I freely admit that is perhaps my own predilection against some of the things I have heard Catholics say about the compiling of the Scripture.

But I would ask this one question.

If we agree that the best of men are men at best and that the Bishops, even being called to a holy vocation as I believe they were, are men and these men in their reason and abilities are fallible thus the Holy Spirit was needed to oversee the entire process to ensure the compilation, then isn’t that agent which ensures the NT Canon actually God and not the Church?

 

[bogeydogg]

Last of the Apostles does not infer “less-than”. Paul, a humple of Servant of God knew his contributuion and his place as being second to Peter. Paul was the most educated in religious matters, and the most articulate in Teaching our Faith.

I failed to be clear when I said he was beneath Apostolic Authority I did not mean Paul I meant Augustine. The sentence was kind of a run on sorry about that. My point is that all Tradition being not Scripture is therefore subservient to Scripture and so is useful good and profitable of course but should not (in my opinion) be held as equal to Scripture.

God Bless

 

[fhansen]

If we agree that the best of men are men at best and that the Bishops, even being called to a holy vocation as I believe they were, are men and these men in their reason and abilities are fallible thus the Holy Spirit was needed to oversee the entire process to ensure the compilation, then isn’t that agent which ensures the NT Canon actually God and not the Church?

Yes, but it’s God through the Church. Which is why interpretation, also, is not accomplished by fallible men but rather accomplished infallibly by the Holy Spirit through otherwise fallible men. Whew!

 

[Salvatore123]

But I would ask this one question.

If we agree that the best of men are men at best and that the Bishops, even being called to a holy vocation as I believe they were, are men and these men in their reason and abilities are fallible thus the Holy Spirit was needed to oversee the entire process to ensure the compilation, then isn’t that agent which ensures the NT Canon actually God and not the Church?

I agree that men, acting under inspiration by the Holy Spirit, did God’s will in compiling the 27 NT books of the NT canon.

Now (and I have an errand to run before I come back), I think we have a framework to work with to go forward.

Here is what I am going to move onto next (which is what you moved onto in your post): Authority.

At the outset, I will “give” you the following:

1. The Catholic Church does not exist separate from God.
2. The Catholic Church does nothing without authority from God.
3. The Catholic Church does not claim authority apart from God.
4. I believe that the men who comprise the leadership in the Catholic Church, including the Pope, are all fallible men - the Catholic Church has never taught otherwise.

. . . Isn’t that agent which ensures the NT Canon actually God and not the Church?

Yes - I agree that God, through the Holy Spirit, ensures that the NT canon is an accurate one.

But here is something to ponder until I return:

What do YOU call that group of men, under the influence by the Holy Spirit, who canonized the NT? Catholics call that group the Catholic Church, and that the decision made by the Catholic Church to recognize the 27 books in the NT is, indeed, the canon of God, had the protection from God of infallibly canonizing that NT canon.

As I said, I will elaborate when I return, but I think I have you agreeing to the point where you HAVE to admit that, if God or the Holy Spirit did not “magically” or “miraculously” compile the NT canon and give it to man already compiled, then you MUST agree that God and the Holy Spirit used agents of mankind to act on their behalf when canonizing the 27 NT canon.

Again - we call that inspired group the Catholic Church meeting in assembly for the purpose of proclaiming something on faith and morals so that they are protected by God from erring as they compiled the 27 book NT canon.

What do YOU call the group of men who canonized the accurate 27 NT canon, when, exactly, did this canonization take place, who was part of this group, and who “put them in charge” so that they would act in a way that produced something accurate by God’s standards?

 

[PJM]

=bogeydogg;7861377]And so you make my point. Of course the Church has authority I have never questioned that, I said we know of this authority because the Scriptures testify to it. Thus the authority of the Church arises from the Scripture and not the other way around.

I know there were disputes about Canon but I have heard EWTN folks say quite clearly that the questions concerning Canon were not over whether books such as the Gospel of Thomas belonged there was really no question of that, but rather that the Canonizing of the Bible by the Bishops began with those who were refuting Marcion who had severely edited down the Gospels and Epistles because he didn’t think much of Old Testament and wanted to separate NT religion from it. So in receiving what the practice concerning Scripture already was in the Church the Bishops refuted Marcion who was trying to change tradition concerning Scripture and that was in 144 AD which is pretty early on by anyone’s calendar.

We know this because Pre-Nicene Fathers told us and some such as Justin, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian all gave lists of the accepted books of the NT among which were the four Gospel, the Pauline letters and then there was some dispute over the Catholic letters. But with such wide agreement so far back it seems strange that you would seem to say that there was no or little agreement concerning Canon before the councils.

God Bless

No

The Authority of BOTH the Church and the Bible come from a single source: God Alone!

Matt. 16:19; Mt. 18:18 and John 20:19-22 attest to this and further is affirmed by John 14:16-17; and john17: 15 to 19* especially v 19].,

God Bless,
Pat

 

[inkaneer]

I failed to be clear when I said he was beneath Apostolic Authority I did not mean Paul I meant Augustine. The sentence was kind of a run on sorry about that. My point is that all Tradition being not Scripture is therefore subservient to Scripture and so is useful good and profitable of course but should not (in my opinion) be held as equal to Scripture.

God Bless

Your sola scriptura is showing. Scripture and Tradition both emanate from the Holy Spirit. Why is it that you can accept the Holy Spirit inspiring men to WRITE truth but is incapacitated from inspiring men to TEACH truth. Why do you place that limitation on the Holy Spirit? I don’t know about your god but my God has no such limitation.

 

[Salvatore123]

Salvatore,

Concerning authority…

While you have not said that the authority for Scripture is derived from the Church, I have had this discussion more than once with other Catholics who have said exactly that and I feel this is no small part of this discussion. I could not disagree more on the question of authority. We only know the Church is authoritative because the Apostles, in the Scriptures, tell us Christ founded the Church. Therefore the authority of the Church comes from the Scriptures. So to say that I am being unclear, as guanophore did, in saying that the Church cannot speak to the authority of the Scriptures arising from the Church since it is the authority of the Church which arises from Scripture, I think is strange. It seems quite obvious to me that the only way the Church (which ultimately is comprised of the Body of Christ and not buildings or institutions) can have authority is in the faith of those who believe (they being the Body of Christ) the Apostolic Confession which is found in the whole of the NT. To believe the Apostles is to believe the NT. The NT tells us the Church was founded by Christ and thus the Church’s authority comes from Christ, therefore the only way to know the Church has authority is by Scripture Alone.

My position on “Authority”

bogeydogg,

This, I fear, is where we are going to hit a roadblock - but I am hoping it is more of a speedbump than something that makes us detour or come to a standstill.

In addition, I intentionally left out the last part of your previous post about “tradition”. I think that requires a separate discussion of its own and I don’t want a discussion about tradition to sidetrack a discussion with what we have been talking about so far: a foundation for the authority of the Church (Catholic Church, for me), and how that foundation was laid.

Remember above in a previous post of mine ALL of the “givens” that I asset to:

1. The Catholic Church does not exist separate from God.
2. The Catholic Church does nothing without authority from God.
3. The Catholic Church does not claim authority apart from God.
4. I believe that the men who comprise the leadership in the Catholic Church, including the Pope, are all fallible men - the Catholic Church has never taught otherwise.

I realize some other Catholics may have argued with you to the contrary, but this is “my” thread, so I get to argue how I want

First, I don’t think I could more clear regarding authority. ALL authority the Catholic Church claims, whether from scripture or tradition, emanates from God. The Church has NEVER claimed otherwise. Individual Catholics may have said something to the contrary, but that does not mean they were correct. I assure you that not one orthodox Catholic will ever deny that God is first, and foremost, the leader of the Catholic Church, and everyone, including our Holy Father, is truly subservient to Him.

Second, now, I will discuss several things you said in the part where I quoted you above, that I disagree with. Perhaps it was just improper wording on your part, or it is because you or your faith or both truly believe what you said.

A. You said: “We only know the Church is authoritative because the Apostles, in the Scriptures, tell us Christ founded the Church. Therefore the authority of the Church comes from the Scriptures.”

That, my friend, is logically impossible.

No one questions that Christ established a visible Church on earth, and that he chose the 12 (and I am using Stephen in place of Judas) as those who would spread his word via the establishment of “bodies of believers” (which I would call “churches”) throughout the world.

What I disagree with is your second sentence stating that “the authority of the Church comes from the Scriptures”.

I disagree because that is NOT the order in which Christ “founded” his Church. Christ first chose 12 to be his Apostles. They were chosen to literally live, eat, sleep, and watch his every move and listen to his every word during the “mission” part of his time on earth. Although one could make an argument that the simple choosing of the Apostles gave them authority above others, I think that Pentecost - when they received the Holy Spirit before setting out on their journeys - is when their “true” power came over them.

If what you said in your second sentence is correct, then none of the Apostles had any authority, even after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost and Christ finished instructing them before he finally ascended to Heaven for the last time. Why would your statement be incorrect? Because the last book of the NT was not finished until some 60+ years after the death of Christ!! And I doubt that any of the Apostles had a complete, updated “portfolio” of NT scriptures that kept growing as each book was written.

I respectfully submit that the authority given to the Church came from God via Christ and the Holy Spirit - NOT from the NT scriptures, for the simply reason that they were not yet in existence!!

In addition (and remember it is a GIVEN that the ultimate authority is God), it was the Church that finally canonized the 27 books as the NT. The NT did not canonize itself. So how could the NT authorize its own creation? That is why I say that is logically impossible. A book cannot create itself.

cont’d below

 

[Salvatore123]

cont’d from last post

I maintain that the order of “authority” went as follows: (1) three persons in one God-head, the Holy Trinity, (2) the Father sending forth his Son as a man (but a man who retained his divine nature as well as acquiring a human nature, (3) Jesus, as God’s Son, choosing Apostles who would lead his Church, (4) Jesus choosing Peter to be leader of that Church (even the majority of modern protestant theologians agree that Peter held a position more prominent than the other apostles - but I hope we can bypass this and agree that Peter was was chosen to be leader of the apostles as a group), (5) the apostles being taught by Jesus after his resurrection and receiving the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, (6) the apostles going out into the world with almost everyone suffering martyrdom as they established “churches” throughout the world during their travels, (7) as they performed their work after Pentecost, the apostles - and others - began to write what would later become the books of the NT.

Thus, we have the authority of the Apostles coming from God via Christ and the Holy Spirit - NOT the scriptures. It was the scriptures that were written BY the apostles, under the authority of the Holy Spirit.

And, as you have already agreed earlier, although it was ultimately God making the final determination via the Holy Spirit affecting mankind, it was, nevertheless, groups of men who canonized 27 books into the NT canon that we have today.

B. You said: “The NT tells us the Church was founded by Christ and thus the Church’s authority comes from Christ, therefore the only way to know the Church has authority is by Scripture Alone.”

Here, you are contradicting what you said earlier, as I just pointed out. At first, you said the authority of the Church came from the Scriptures. Now (and I agree with the way you said it this time), you are saying the Church’s authority came from Christ. I certainly agree with the Church’s authority coming from Christ. Christ breathed the Holy Spirit onto the Apostles, and we see evidence of Christ beginning the practice of laying of hands onto others as a sign of conferring authority.

Now, here is where it gets a bit tricky because of the way things are often worded.

I concede that NT books were scripture as soon as each NT book was written. BUT, those books were NOT made part of, or recognized as part of, the NT canon until a group of men under the authority of the Holy Spirit proclaimed them to be part of the NT canon. If you disagree with this important point, please say so, but in saying so, please elaborate on why you disagree.

Although each NT book was inspired as it was being written, other than for St. John in Revelation (where he explicitly says so), do we know if all of the authors of the books of the NT really knew that they were writing “books” that would later become part of a compiled set of writings to be known as the New Testament. I am not saying they did not know - I am simply saying we have no way of knowing if they did, one way or the other.

Now, as history shows, many, many books were floating around - even during the time of the apostles - whose authors claimed were inspired by God. Even others claimed some of these books were inspired by God, but no one (human beings, that is) knew for certain which ones were or weren’t.

So how was that problem of authenticity of inspired books finally resolved?

Other than God giving people a “ready made” NT (which you have already acknowledged did not occur), mankind had to make that determination albeit under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit! But how could mankind make such a determination and ensure everyone else (that is, the “commoner”) that their determination was a correct one - that is, an infallible one? A group of men inspired by the Holy Spirit had to finally meet and determine what would and would not be part of the NT canon. These meetings were either councils or synods. But to be “binding” and “correct”, God would have to ensure that such meetings were infallible in their final declaration. What other way could it be?

I (as well as the Catholic Church) submits that the apostles, through their successors, called to order various councils and synods with the goal of not only stopping heresy - but also to compile a “bible” that man could use as the basis for the spreading of God’s word. After all, what is the bible BUT God’s word?

So, we saw the exercise of Apostolic authority by the election of a successor to Judas - the selection of St. Stephen. Now where do you think that authority came from - the authority to select a replacement for Judas? We Catholics submit that it came from Christ through both Pentecost and the time he spent teaching the apostles before he finally ascended to heaven for the final time.

Now, I think, is a good point for me to stop and let you respond to what I have written in terms of my analysis of what you previously said and my own positions.

I look forward to hearing from you. And I again sincerely thank you for participating. I don’t say this in a bragging way, but I think this discussion is progressing quite well.

Regards,

 

[inkaneer]

And so you make my point. Of course the Church has authority I have never questioned that, I said we know of this authority because the Scriptures testify to it. Thus the authority of the Church arises from the Scripture and not the other way around.

But the scriptures only testify to it. They witness the authority of the Church. But that does not mean that it is the scriptures that empower the church with authority. That authority comes from God. It is Gosd who empowers both the Chuirch and the Scriptures with authority.

Well I disagree. The one single reason for the establishment of the Canon was Gnosticism with all of its fraudulent writings. Regarding Marcion, his teachings included the rejection of the Old Testament and a distinction between the Supreme God of goodness and an inferior God of justice, who was the Creator and God of the Jews. He regarded Christ as the messenger of the Supreme God. So the problem with Marcion was a lot more than just the scriptures. He argued that the Old and New Testaments could not be reconciled to each other and cited seemingly contradictory doctrines ‘an eye for an eye’ versus ‘love your enemies’]. Marcion accepted only one Gospel [Luke’s] and 10 epistles [all written by Paul] for his canon. But he edited them and made changes to suit his theology. So the Gospel of Luke was perverted and became Marcion’s Evangelicon, and the 10 Pauline letters were also perverted by his changes and became his Apostolikon. So the church’s problem with Marcion was not the simple problem of his “…trying to change tradition concerning Scripture.” Rather Marcion was changing the scriptures to fit his theology. That is entirely different than the way you picture him. I guess you could call him a sort of prefigurement of Luther.

But Marcion was only one of many in the early church. If you want to give him any credit then he was the first major heretic that the Church opposed [regarding scripture] and by doing so the church first became fully conscious of its inheritance of apostolic writings. But again many more would come after him and it wasn’t until about 350 AD, some 200 years after Marcion that the church finally had a NT canon proposed [by St. Athanasius] that was eventually adopted.In the interim there were many canons proposed by some very devout men but the canon of Athanasius in 350 AD was the one that we use today.

Also, let us not forget that there were other non Gnostic writings that were accepted as inspired by many locales that were not included in the canon. Such writings included, The Shepherd, The Didache, The Protoevangelium of James as well as others. Conversely there were inspired writings that were not accepted. These in clude Revelation, Hebrews and some of the general epistles. The important thing to remember is that there was no canon of scripture in the early Church; meaning there was no Bible. The Church operated on Apostolic Tradition and thus it was vital to know who ordained who. Apostolic Succession of Bishops was the pedigree of the church. Tertullian commented on this when he said:

“But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter” (*Demurrer Against the Heretics 32 *[A.D. 200]).

Furthermore, The Bible sprang from the Church established by Christ. Therefore, the Bible is the book of the Church rather than the Church being the church of the Bible.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Tiberius1701]

No one questions that Christ established a visible Church on earth, and that he chose the 12 (and I am using Stephen in place of Judas) as those who would spread his word via the establishment of “bodies of believers” (which I would call “churches”) throughout the world.
…
So, we saw the exercise of Apostolic authority by the election of a successor to Judas - the selection of St. Stephen.

(Psst… Salvatore, don’t you mean St. Matthias, not St. Stephen [Acts 1:12-26]? Other than that, keep up the good work. I’m enjoying the debate. )

 

[Kay_Cee]

Bogeydogg,

Are you ever going to reply to my post (#19)?

I’ve been waiting patiently and checking every day for a reply, but I have yet to see anything.