Brada Gaelic,Yes, from the thread on James 2 and justification. What that has to do with this conversation I’m none too sure. I never claimed that “all I have is Scripture.”
Blessings.
I understand.I don’t believe your claim is baseless, Steve. I have the utmost respect for Roman Catholic theology. What I don’t have respect for is triumphalistic claims to have an infallible interpretation when the claim is still based on one’s subjective, fallible choice to agree with it.
This assumes, subjectively, that the Bible is the only source of divine revelation.Yes, He did grant immense powers to it. Being God, however, His authority is still greater. Therefore, the church is still regulated by His word.
But it asserts more. It asserts that one can determine the truth through interpretation of scripture and then make a judgement about others as to which doctrine is sound and which is not. What good would it do to have a constitution with everyone making their own interpretation and then accusing others of breaking the law, as they see it? It would result in chaos, everyone wanting their own country based upon how they read the document. Just as the Constitution needs an authority to interpret it, so does the Bible.That is all sola scriptura asserts.
Our claims are verified by looking to the first Christians, the early Church Fathers, who testify to the fact that much of what you consider extrabiblical doctrine was being practiced and believed by the early Church, who received it from the Apostles. The Eucharist (while certainly biblical) was held in the same esteem as the Church today. The liturgy of the Mass can be found there, as well as the sacraments. So it isn’t just an unverifiable claim. There is a lot with which to back it up.Where we disagree is the nature of revelation lies and whether the CC can verify its claim of certain extra scriptural doctrine.
Well it certainly is no secret that we have differences but I won’t spend the time going through each of the “differences” you cite above because it would take ten pages to respond adequately, but you are mixing disciplines with doctrines and throwing in a lot in which the differences are indeed relatively small.Fair enough on you not knowing, but to claim the differences are small and unimportant is simply untrue. It’s not fair to the Orthodox when Catholics make this statement. Papal infallibility, papal primacy, head of the church on earth, purgatory, original sin, the immaculate conception, transubstatiation, the filioque, indulgences, thesaurus meritum, clerical celibacy, birth control, divorce et al., are not minor differences. You have even less in common with the Oriental churches, given the Chalcedonian disagreements. Either all of these things in Tradition are on the Roman side or the Eastern side. If any of those things favor either side, the other side is not infallible. And it’s your fallible decision to accept one over the others.
Fair enough.You’re honest, Steve, and thus easy to converse with. No, I dont think your position is unreasonable. My only point is that, while reasonable, it’s no less your own interpretation and fallible than mine. You can convince me of the truth claims of Rome by presenting that evidence. What is not going to convince me is just repeating infallible, infallible over and over as if that is going to demonstrate anything. I know you haven’t done that.
I don’t see the equivalence between the few Eastern Orthodox Churches when compared to the thousands upon thousands of Protestant faith traditions, not that it really matters. I certainly don’t want to get into the game of throwing numbers at each other as that is not the point of this dicussion.I have less disagreement with Lutherans, Reformed, and Anglicans than you do with the East.
All I am saying is there is division on your side of the fence, too. Just as much disagreement over tradition as is scripture. Before stones are thrown at our divisions, fix the infallible glass houses first.
Christ started a church, founded on the apostles, with Peter as the chief/representative apostle. However, since we are focusing on the Scriptural record, there is no evidence recorded in the apostolic writings that Peter exercised any of what is claimed for the papacy today (remember that Vatican I established that what they were claiming in the dogmatic definition is that the papal powers have always been the same, so that is the weight of evidence Catholics are required to produce). Even if Peter did have that charism, there is no written evidence of it being given to a successor.Gaelic, you are obviously very thoughtful and well educated in your faith. In fact, I really haven’t spoke with a Baptist that reaches your level, maybe ever. So I want to make it clear that I respect everything you say and do not discount anything lightly. Let me see if I can be clearer in my communication.
I am not aware of your view of the early Church, but let’s stick just with Scripture for the moment. The following things seem very clear to me from Scripture.
- Christ started a Church, built upon Peter, to whom he gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
This is where we begin to disagree because in your view “church” equals magisterium. I don’t share the presupposition so I read “church differently”. I don’t restrict it to the hierarchy or caste.
- Christ gave incredible power to this Church; the power to bind and loose, not only on earth, but in heaven as well.
Agree (with the above caveat in mind.)
- Christ gave the authority to forgive sins (or not to forgive sins, but hold them bound).
Agree.
- Christ promised that he would remain with this Church until the end of time.
Agree (again, caveat)
- Christ promised that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide this Church into all truth.
Agree.
- Christ promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against it.
Could you define what you mean by apostolic succession? Could you cite what passages in the NT support it? I realize that succession is discussed in the post apostolic period but id like to keep it to the NT for now.Now I realize that you are aware of these Catholic claims, but they are more than just claims, they are there, very clearly in Scripture, your sole authority. This Church definately still exists, if we believe the promises of Christ that he would remain with it until the end of time and the the gates of hell will never prevail. I can trace the apostolic succession of my bishops to the Apostles, specifically to Peter. Why would I not submit to this Church and to its teachings? I don’t think it unreasonable, in light of the evidence, to believe that this Church is the Catholic Church.
Gaelic,My interpretation is, of course, subjective. Along with everyone else who reads anything. You may agree with the interpretation of the church, but your choice to agree is also subjective and fallible. However, neither of us claim to determine what the doctrine of our respective churches happen to be. We either agree or disagree with them.
I don’t believe your claim is baseless, Steve. I have the utmost respect for Roman Catholic theology. What I don’t have respect for is triumphalistic claims to have an infallible interpretation when the claim is still based on one’s subjective, fallible choice to agree with it.
Yes, He did grant immense powers to it. Being God, however, His authority is still greater. Therefore, the church is still regulated by His word. That is all sola scriptura asserts. Where we disagree is the nature of revelation lies and whether the CC can verify its claim of certain extra scriptural doctrine.
Fair enough on you not knowing, but to claim the differences are small and unimportant is simply untrue. It’s not fair to the Orthodox when Catholics make this statement. Papal infallibility, papal primacy, head of the church on earth, purgatory, original sin, the immaculate conception, transubstatiation, the filioque, indulgences, thesaurus meritum, clerical celibacy, birth control, divorce et al., are not minor differences. You have even less in common with the Oriental churches, given the Chalcedonian disagreements. Either all of these things in Tradition are on the Roman side or the Eastern side. If any of those things favor either side, the other side is not infallible. And it’s your fallible decision to accept one over the others.
You’re honest, Steve, and thus easy to converse with. No, I dont think your position is unreasonable. My only point is that, while reasonable, it’s no less your own interpretation and fallible than mine. You can convince me of the truth claims of Rome by presenting that evidence. What is not going to convince me is just repeating infallible, infallible over and over as if that is going to demonstrate anything. I know you haven’t done that.
I have less disagreement with Lutherans, Reformed, and Anglicans than you do with the East.
All I am saying is there is division on your side of the fence, too. Just as much disagreement over tradition as is scripture. Before stones are thrown at our divisions, fix the infallible glass houses first.
Agreed. We both believe Scripture is inspired so that isn’t debateable. However, the burden is to demonstrate that any doctrine outside of Scripture is inspired. No, I don’t expect you to do that in one post lolI understand.
This assumes, subjectively, that the Bible is the only source of divine revelation.
I wouldn’t say it asserts anything about interpretation. It asserts where infallible authority lies. Using Luther or Calvin as examples, they understood that Scripture is interpreted in and by the church.But it asserts more. It asserts that one can determine the truth through interpretation of scripture and then make a judgement about others as to which doctrine is sound and which is not. What good would it do to have a constitution with everyone making their own interpretation and then accusing others of breaking the law, as they see it? It would result in chaos, everyone wanting their own country based upon how they read the document. Just as the Constitution needs an authority to interpret it, so does the Bible.
Yes we should have the same esteem for the sacraments and liturgical practice as them. No dispute there. I’m rather fond of the Western and Eastern liturgies. I’m not a Puritan.Our claims are verified by looking to the first Christians, the early Church Fathers, who testify to the fact that much of what you consider extrabiblical doctrine was being practiced and believed by the early Church, who received it from the Apostles. The Eucharist (while certainly biblical) was held in the same esteem as the Church today. The liturgy of the Mass can be found there, as well as the sacraments. So it isn’t just an unverifiable claim. There is a lot with which to back it up.
A couple are practices, most are dogma. No small things at all.Well it certainly is no secret that we have differences but I won’t spend the time going through each of the “differences” you cite above because it would take ten pages to respond adequately, but you are mixing disciplines with doctrines and throwing in a lot in which the differences are indeed relatively small.
I agree or we will we just tu quoque each other. Numbers are irrelevant. Division is division.I don’t see the equivalence between the few Eastern Orthodox Churches when compared to the thousands upon thousands of Protestant faith traditions, not that it really matters. I certainly don’t want to get into the game of throwing numbers at each other as that is not the point of this dicussion.
Peter was given the keys. The keys represent authority because they have the power to open and to lock shut. Are you saying that Jesus would have given this incredible gift to Peter only to have it die with him? Does that make even the least bit of sense? And the fact that there is no writen evidence in the New Testament means nothing as it doesn’t cover the post-apostolic period. When Paul speaks to Timothy he is speaking of his generation, Timothy’s generation and the generation who Timothy will teach. That’s three generations:Christ started a church, founded on the apostles, with Peter as the chief/representative apostle. However, since we are focusing on the Scriptural record, there is no evidence recorded in the apostolic writings that Peter exercised any of what is claimed for the papacy today (remember that Vatican I established that what they were claiming in the dogmatic definition is that the papal powers have always been the same, so that is the weight of evidence Catholics are required to produce). Even if Peter did have that charism, there is no written evidence of it being given to a successor.
Sounds a little vague to me. Do you believe that everyone received the gifts and authority of the Apostles?This is where we begin to disagree because in your view “church” equals magisterium. I don’t share the presupposition so I read “church differently”. I don’t restrict it to the hierarchy or caste.
Apostolic succession is an unbroken line of bishops going back to the apostles. An Apostle laid his hands upon one, who laid his hand upon one, who laid his hands upon one… all the way down to today. Every bishop (and every priest, really) can trace their succession, which bishop ordained which bishop, all the way back to the Apostles.Could you define what you mean by apostolic succession? Could you cite what passages in the NT support it? I realize that succession is discussed in the post apostolic period but id like to keep it to the NT for now.
Blessings to you also.Blessings Steve
It would be conjecture. We have to go on what was said about it in the apostolic and post-apostolic period. Of course, I don’t grant that he had papal authority anyway. Even if he had, though, the apostles received revelation, raised the dead, and did a whole host of supernatural displays; all of it died with them. They are the foundation. Once the foundation was layed, there wasn’t any reason for those gifts to continue. The house doesn’t add to the foundation.Peter was given the keys. The keys represent authority because they have the power to open and to lock shut. Are you saying that Jesus would have given this incredible gift to Peter only to have it die with him? Does that make even the least bit of sense?
Have to run for a minute; will definitely address the Timothy and Clement citings.And the fact that there is no writen evidence in the New Testament means nothing as it doesn’t cover the post-apostolic period. When Paul speaks to Timothy he is speaking of his generation, Timothy’s generation and the generation who Timothy will teach. That’s three generations:
No, not so much. However, considering the thread thus far has been one commentator after another questioning my claims, without really answering any questions in return, turn about is fair play. Steve seems capable enough to do so. I provided several examples of why I believe Scripture is revelation. If you don’t accept it as sufficient for an explanation, there isn’t much I can do about that. I don’t see questioning whether Scripture is revelation is relevant to the topic anyway. Catholics believe it, too.Gaelic Bard, it’s interesting how you’ve moved the conversation from sola scriptura to trying to get Catholics to “prove” apostolic succession. You’ve managed to moved it away from the question of how you can prove the you yourself have revelation, and also away from the biblical proof of the claims of the Church. You obviously want to get to debate about early Church writings, an area in which you feel you may have some expertise, and from which you may feel proves your case against the Catholic Church.
Are you affiliated with Southern Baptist Theological Seminary by any chance?No, not so much. However, considering the thread thus far has been one commentator after another questioning my claims, without really answering any questions in return, turn about is fair play. Steve seems capable enough to do so. I provided several examples of why I believe Scripture is revelation. If you don’t accept it as sufficient for an explanation, there isn’t much I can do about that. I don’t see questioning whether Scripture is revelation is relevant to the topic anyway. Catholics believe it, too.
I wanted to address this quote from Clement first. I actually posted a portion of this waaay back in the mists of the thread. Clement continues after the section you quoted here: “We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.”A historical document written around 80 A.D., which is not post-apostolic, is pretty clear on the matter. The fact that it wasn’t written in Scripture makes it no less true:
*“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” *(Clements Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).
I think this is consistent with Clement’s quote that you cited. Timothy can be appointed to an office by an apostle, and he and successors to that office and similar offices can be expected to maintain apostolic teaching in that capacity, without an implication that Timothy is taking on Paul’s office. Nor does Paul indicate to Timothy that all churches in perpetuity must have a specific, distinct line of bishops traced back to him or to Peter…Now you may argue that since it is the New Testament period, these issues would not have cropped up as they did in the post-apostolic church. Yet if apostolic succession and/or Petrine primacy is as vital an issue to the unity of the church as Catholics claim that it is, wouldn’t it be logical that it be mentioned, especially in the pastoral epistles?“[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).
No. I did my undergraduate work at Liberty, which is an SBC school, too. I’m doing graduate courses at a secular school now, for education. The intervening period was in the military doing nothing much constructive haha.Are you affiliated with Southern Baptist Theological Seminary by any chance?
Perhaps you are unaware that the notorius reformed baptist (and extreme anti-Catholic) James White also uses J. N. D. Kelly’s work to back up his claims. Info here from a Catholic website:."
It should also be mentioned that during the time of Clement, there is very little evidence of a monarchical episcopate (one bishop). See J. N. D. Kelly’s work on this particular question.
He may. I don’t read or listen to James White all that much. I know he referenced Kelly in a debate he did with Mitch Pacwa on the papacy. I am not big on professional apologetics, Catholic or Protestant. Having said that, the fact that James White cites J. N. D. Kelly doesn’t mean all that much, since Catholics cite him, too. Of course, he’s just one example. I noticed in the link you provided, he brings Pelikan into it. Though Pelikan was Lutheran most of his life, he converted to Orthodoxy about 12 years before his death.Perhaps you are unaware that the notorius reformed baptist (and extreme anti-Catholic) James White also uses J. N. D. Kelly’s work to back up his claims. Info here from a Catholic website:
socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/10/protestant-church-historians-patristics.html
I can imagine that it wouldn’t mean all that much to you that a notorius anti-Catholic (James White) has used the same Clement of Rome/Bishops argument that you are using. Did you look at the link?He may. I don’t read or listen to James White all that much. I know he referenced Kelly in a debate he did with Mitch Pacwa on the papacy. I am not big on professional apologetics, Catholic or Protestant. Having said that, the fact that James White cites J. N. D. Kelly doesn’t mean all that much, since Catholics cite him, too. Of course, he’s just one example. I noticed in the link you provided, he brings Pelikan into it. Though Pelikan was Lutheran most of his life, he converted to Orthodoxy about 12 years before his death.
Yes, he was Anglican. I don’t see how James Whites’ views of Catholicism have any bearing on Kelly’s study of church history. He was not in any respect anti-Catholic. Protestants and Catholics alike have hailed him as one of the greatest patristics scholars of the 20th century. The information in the Oxford Dictionary of the Popes has never been disputed.I can imagine that it wouldn’t mean all that much to you that a notorius anti-Catholic (James White) has used the same Clement of Rome/Bishops argument that you are using. Did you look at the link?
JND Kelly is not Catholic (even if some Catholics have cited him).
No, but I think he is a patristic scholar that has a reputation for being fair and tolerant of Catholicism.JND Kelly is not Catholic (even if some Catholics have cited him).
Sure, but where is that from? In other words, why I should I think it true?No, what I said was that, in the practice of sola scriptura, scripture is the final norm by which teachers, doctrines, etc are held accountable.
Because it looks like the final authority for you is the Bible. If that is the case, and this is not in the Bible, that seems to indicate an inconsistency, no? Even the book you consider as the final authority regarding faith does not seem to say what you want to believe?Why would a practice have to be in the Bible?
How did you figure out what the church is? If I just start calling myself the church, is that a valid church? If I perhaps attended the Lutheran seminary and got credentials, can I start my own church? Who gave the permission/authority for the Lutheran seminaries to teach or who certified them?Since I didn’t use the term authority,let me phrase my response this way.
Since SS is a practice of the Church, we recognise the role of the Church to teach, to practice hermeunetics, etc.
Sure, but how do you come to know this claim?I don’t know about intuitive, but certainly we agree that it is the word of God, our differences on how we use the historically disputed books notwithstanding.