SS practicing Christian: What do you say Scripture is?

[benhur]

]Not small potatoes. But not what the Early Church limited herself to by any means, which goes against the presented premise of SS.

SS has nothing to do with excluding other authorities. What, Writ authority lovers cover there eyes when Writ talks of presbyters, and deacons, and apostles, and prophets, and the ecclesia? No wonder you are so against SS if that is what you think it espouses. I would be against it also.

Still don’t understand how you can see SS as authoritative when it’s the Church (whether Catholic, protestant, Orthodox, or joe-bobs-down-in-the-garage) that turns the words into praxis, and also explains it’s meaning

Exactly. Praxis is of , from and by Writ after the apostles departed. Our message is backed up by , authenticated by Writ. We explain Writ , because of it’s superlative authority and authenticity.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Hi Susan,

Not trying to sound unruly here but do you understand that there was no bible until the end of the 4th century? And, thus, the importance of the apostolic Church (which you refer to as Rome) To safeguard the deposit of the faith and pass it on to generation after generation?

I haven’t read much of your posts so I apologize for not knowing how informed you may be, but I have this radar of sorts that alarms whenever I hear people implying that the Paul was the president of the First Baptist Church or that the Church of the 1st century was like the protestant churches of today, splintered off into the thousands relying on bible-only methodology. It’s just not true as most people were illiterate and written scripture of any sort was very difficult to come by. Word of mouth was the key to the stabilization and progression of the early church, not bibles. We have them all over the place now, and thank God for that, but for the overwhelming majority of our existence in Christianity, that wasn’t the case.

Again, I hope I am not sounding insulting as that is not my intent.

Pax

Hi La,

While not great readers, they had very good memory and auditory skills. Their word of mouth , ability for recitation was much keener.

Eusebius is thought to have made fifty bibles for Constantine just after 325 AD. Eusebius found that by tradition the churches pretty much held to a twenty seven book NT .

Origen a century earlier also held to twenty seven book NT.

But yes, by the end of fourth century a council formalized the NT canon. Yet Writ was Writ as soon as it was penned and revered as soon as it was received. As you allude to , when something is rarer it is more appreciated. Apostolic writings had the highest regard and were treasured ,sought after, copied, from the first century on.

“Their surpassing authority…were easy for everyone to read… clear and lowly style of speech (can’t be thinking of King James) making itself accessible to all men…”

Augustine- Confessions book 6 ch 5

 

[benhur]

[The prime issue is community. What is it in the Christian context?
I find it fascinating that many protestants cannot admit the bible was breathed out of a community of living persons, and that community must have continuity, and exist somewhere,

Hi clem,

I am fascinated never to have met anyone who says there was no community from whence Writ came from and for. I have met those that insist that continuity by that said community was sought after and guided by the superlative authority of Writ, and divinely distinct to that end

Is he who he said he is, or is he not? Is he still dead in the tomb, and we are relegated to the book, or is he a risen and living person, and sustaining his body?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

While not great readers, they had very good memory and auditory skills. Their word of mouth , ability for recitation was much keener.

Eusebius is thought to have made fifty bibles for Constantine just after 325 AD. Eusebius found that by tradition the churches pretty much held to a twenty seven book NT .

Origen a century earlier also held to twenty seven book NT.

But yes, by the end of fourth century a council formalized the NT canon. Yet Writ was Writ as soon as it was penned and revered as soon as it was received. As you allude to , when something is rarer it is more appreciated. Apostolic writings had the highest regard and were treasured ,sought after, copied, from the first century on.

“Their surpassing authority…were easy for everyone to read… clear and lowly style of speech (can’t be thinking of King James) making itself accessible to all men…”

Augustine- Confessions book 6 ch 5

Greetings, Ben.

I’ve read that there were nearly 300 documents or books in the early church all debated as to whether or not they were inspired.

So many of the books were disputed to include, James, Jude, John’s epistles, Hebrews and Revelation and of course the 7 OT books protestants do not consider inspired.

To give us a idea of what was happening in the early church, we can look at the earliest document we have with a NT book listing called the Muratorian fragment.

And of course that dates to 170-200AD and it is missing NT books such as John’s epistles yet includes books we now consider gnostic such as the Apocalypse of Peter.

Thankfully we had a authoritative church and referee in Pope Damasus to clear up any confusion. After 382 AD the disputes finally ended for all intents and purposes, until Luther.

 

[SyCarl]

Hi Susan,

Not trying to sound unruly here but do you understand that there was no bible until the end of the 4th century? And, thus, the importance of the apostolic Church (which you refer to as Rome) To safeguard the deposit of the faith and pass it on to generation after generation?

I haven’t read much of your posts so I apologize for not knowing how informed you may be, but I have this radar of sorts that alarms whenever I hear people implying that the Paul was the president of the First Baptist Church or that the Church of the 1st century was like the protestant churches of today, splintered off into the thousands relying on bible-only methodology. It’s just not true as most people were illiterate and written scripture of any sort was very difficult to come by. Word of mouth was the key to the stabilization and progression of the early church, not bibles. We have them all over the place now, and thank God for that, but for the overwhelming majority of our existence in Christianity, that wasn’t the case.

Again, I hope I am not sounding insulting as that is not my intent.

Pax

Scripture became Scripture at the time it was written. The early church fathers had no hesitation in quoting Scripture before the end of the fourth century. The provincial councils which promulgated a canon of the Bible did not have a binding effect, even if they were confirmed by the Pope. This is shown by the fact that later members of the church continued to refer to various canons that differed from those of those councils. This continued right through to Cardinal Cajetan around the time of the Reformation.

It was not necessary for all to have access to or the ability to read Scripture. They could be taught orally by hearing the Scripture read. Scripture alone does not require that each individual read the Bible for themselves. It teaches that Scripture is the highest authority. It does not mean all truth is in the Bible or that all Scripture is easily understood but that everything necessary for belief is plain in Scripture.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

In your piecing together, it is vital to realise that it is not a question of “why Catholics ‘feel’ that way". The “differences” are not due to mere “feelings”. They are a reality of history and fact.

It is the reality that Jesus of Nazareth was God through His Resurrection and appearances to many and His emphatic:
**“You are Peter (Rock), and upon this rock I will build my Church. …and I will give you the Keys of the kingdom of heaven.” **[Mt 16:18,19].

It is only through Christ’s Catholic Church that the medically authenticated miracles occur at Lourdes in France, that the miracle of the sun occurred at Fatima in Portugal, and the many Eucharistic (Body and Blood of Christ) miracles have occurred, and still occur to this day.

But you neglect the fact that the fathers refer to Peters confession of faith ( the gospel ) as the foundation

 

[Abu]

Starwarsfan2 #265
But you neglect the fact that the fathers refer to Peters confession of faith ( the gospel ) as the foundation

St Peter’s confession of faith (MT 16:16) demonstrates his understanding and faith in Christ which is why Christ builds His Catholic Church on St Peter as His Chief Vicar, giving him alone the Keys of the kingdom of heaven, making him the rock foundation of His Church.

409. Upon what grounds does your Church claim infallibility?
**Christ established His church upon a foundation as solid as a rock, and declared that the gates of hell, or forces of evil, would not prevail against it. **This implies the perpetual retention of the truth taught by Christ, forbidding its corruption. He commanded her to teach all nations, “all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.” Matt. XXVIII., 20. His presence guarantees that she will ever teach a doctrine identical With His own principles. He promised that the Holy Spirit would abide with the Church forever, undoubtedly a pledge of perpetual infallibility. Jn. XIV., 16. St. Paul clearly manifests this doctrine by his words, “Behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth.” I. Tim. III., 15. The early Fathers insist upon the infallibility of the Church, and reason also tells us that the unity of the Church could not be maintained if she could fail in her teaching of the truth; her very holiness forbids heresy; her catholicity demands expansion without loss of the self-same teaching; whilst her apostolicity requires perpetual duration of an unchanged Apostolic doctrine. Finally, if the Catholic Church be not infallible, then there is no Church on earth which is such as Christ predicted.
radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-1.php?t=44&n=409
[My emphasis].

 

[rcwitness]

Eusebius is thought to have made fifty bibles for Constantine just after 325 AD. Eusebius found that by tradition the churches pretty much held to a twenty seven book NT

Yes. So the Church relied on tradition and the father’s to discern what was the Word of God, and what wasnt. The oldest bible we have contains more. Codex Sinaiticus

Origen a century earlier also held to twenty seven book NT.

Yes. He was interesting indeed! And we have many other things he wrote. Some we accept, and others we do not. But I have read his list of the New Testament once, and can’t find it again. Do you know where it is?

But yes, by the end of fourth century a council formalized the NT canon. Yet Writ was Writ as soon as it was penned and revered as soon as it was received. As you allude to , when something is rarer it is more appreciated. Apostolic writings had the highest regard and were treasured ,sought after, copied, from the first century on.

I believe the Church does not diminish Scriptures at all. They are the highest authority we have. Yet some things (Infant Baptism, Intercession of the Saints, Canon of Scripture) are not recorded in Scripture, and by an Apostle! Also, we need to believe in one mind and judgment. We need to accept one tradition and put aside the other. We need to accept one interpretation and not another which contradicts it. Therefore we have the Church leadership and high offices to Confirm these things, and so strengthen the faithful

“Their surpassing authority…were easy for everyone to read… clear and lowly style of speech (can’t be thinking of King James) making itself accessible to all men…”

Augustine- Confessions book 6 ch 5

I say, let’s use the same manner which we relied on to arrive at our biblical canon, with all other disputed matters!

 

[clem456]

Hi clem,

I am fascinated never to have met anyone who says there was no community from whence Writ came from and for.

You hear this literally all the time. The bible is discussed as if it sprang out of the hair of the apostles. Many people will admit the scriptures were taken from Tradition, but only when the logical dead end is pointed out and there is nowhere else to go.

I have met those that insist that continuity by that said community was sought after and guided by the superlative authority of Writ, and divinely distinct to that end

How can the community be guided by the superlative authority of Writ, when there was no writ for decades, at the very least.
And there ya go. You have met someone.

 

[rcwitness]

How can the community be guided by the superlative authority of Writ, when there was no writ for decades, at the very least.
And there ya go. You have met someone.

The Church had the Apostles. And the first converts devoted themselves to their Teaching. By the time the last Apostle John died, the Church had the Scriptures. Though they we not settled into a canon. And that is absolutely necessary for SS!

 

[susanlo]

Hi Susan,

Not trying to sound unruly here but do you understand that there was no bible until the end of the 4th century? And, thus, the importance of the apostolic Church (which you refer to as Rome) To safeguard the deposit of the faith and pass it on to generation after generation?

I haven’t read much of your posts so I apologize for not knowing how informed you may be, but I have this radar of sorts that alarms whenever I hear people implying that the Paul was the president of the First Baptist Church or that the Church of the 1st century was like the protestant churches of today, splintered off into the thousands relying on bible-only methodology. It’s just not true as most people were illiterate and written scripture of any sort was very difficult to come by. Word of mouth was the key to the stabilization and progression of the early church, not bibles. We have them all over the place now, and thank God for that, but for the overwhelming majority of our existence in Christianity, that wasn’t the case.

Again, I hope I am not sounding insulting as that is not my intent.

Pax

It seems that history can be a very subjective topic.

 

[susanlo]

The Church had the Apostles. And the first converts devoted themselves to their Teaching. By the time the last Apostle John died, the Church had the Scriptures. Though they we not settled into a canon. And that is absolutely necessary for SS!

I guess we need to what the 2nd and 3rd century theologians were quoting the most. They quoted much Scripture and wrote commentaries on the OT and NT. Were they writing commentary on other documents that were later rejected? Did they cite sources that turned out to be Gnostic?

 

[rcwitness]

I guess we need to what the 2nd and 3rd century theologians were quoting the most.

Why are we trying to settle a Canon still?

They quoted much Scripture and wrote commentaries on the OT and NT. Were they writing commentary on other documents that were later rejected? Did they cite sources that turned out to be Gnostic?

I don’t know. I’m sure some did. After all, we have the Codex Sinaiticus with more than 27 NT books. The early Fathers came up with varying lists. This was why there was, is and always will be, a need for the Church to declare something with binding authority.

Remember, the Catholic faith does not believe the Church has higher authority than Scripture.

 

[susanlo]

Why are we trying to settle a Canon still?

I am just trying to figure out if they were clueless about what was God-breathed Scripture and what wasn’t before the first church council to declare a canon. I think those in the church had a pretty good idea from the beginning of what was written as God-breathed Scripture and what wasn’t. I think the church council was a formality amidst Gnosticism. I am not a historian, though.

I don’t know. I’m sure some did. After all, we have the Codex Sinai ticks with more than 27 NT books. The early Fathers came up with varying lists. This was why there was, is and always will be, a need for the Church to declare something with binding authority.

Remember, the Catholic faith does not believe the Church has higher authority than Scripture.

I just think that I always gave credit to God for seeing to it that the Bible was completed. I guess it is hard to completely differentiate it. Did a powerful Moses bring water from the rock - or did the powerful God bring this miracle through a mere man? Did the infallible church write the Bible - or did an infallible God write the Bible through a fallible church?

 

[rcwitness]

I am just trying to figure out if they were clueless about what was God-breathed Scripture and what wasn’t before the first church council to declare a canon. I think those in the church had a pretty good idea from the beginning of what was written as God-breathed Scripture and what wasn’t. I think the church council was a formality amidst Gnosticism. I am not a historian, though.

I agree. These men had a “good idea” and they got this idea from what???

I just think that I always gave credit to God for seeing to it that the Bible was completed.

Amen

Did a powerful Moses bring water from the rock - or did the powerful God bring this miracle through a mere man? Did the infallible church write the Bible - or did an infallible God write the Bible through a fallible church?

I see. How then, do we know that the Church got the Canon right? After all, if Scripture is the highest authority, it has to be right.

SS tacitly acknowledges this, but then removes this authority from her on other issues.

Jesus is with His Church. He is the fountain of all holiness. It is He alone who is infallible, and He who is with His Church. The Church has the gift of infallibility through her relationship with Jesus. This is founded on His Eucharist.

 

[Wannano]

I see. How then, do we know that the Church got the Canon right? After all, if Scripture is the highest authority, it has to be right.

I think you have answered your own question with the following statement:

Jesus is with His Church. He is the fountain of all holiness. It is He alone who is infallible, and He who is with His Church.

 

[rcwitness]

I think you have answered your own question with the following statement:

So how do we know Jesus’ infallible, authorative declaration concerning the canon? How do we know the Church got it right? Is it possible the Church is using wrong Scriptures or should be using ones that are right?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Greetings.

Scripture became Scripture at the time it was written. The early church fathers had no hesitation in quoting Scripture before the end of the fourth century. The provincial councils which promulgated a canon of the Bible did not have a binding effect, even if they were confirmed by the Pope. This is shown by the fact that later members of the church continued to refer to various canons that differed from those of those councils. This continued right through to Cardinal Cajetan around the time of the Reformation.

And those books are still quoted from today. All that means, is that there is truth outside the bible, which you have acknowledged.

Latin Vulgate from the end of the 4th century has the same books in it that we have in our bibles today. Gutenberg Bible that came before Luther, same 73 books. So that’s a binding effect.

It was not necessary for all to have access to or the ability to read Scripture. They could be taught orally by hearing the Scripture read.

Agreed, but they were a part of the universal Church.

Scripture alone does not require that each individual read the Bible for themselves. It teaches that Scripture is the highest authority

Ok and It also teaches that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, 1 Tim 3:15 Pillars hold things up. If there was confusion or something to be settled you went to the Church, you didn’t just start your own independent church Matthew 18:17

It does not mean all truth is in the Bible or that all Scripture is easily understood

Agreed.

but that everything necessary for belief is plain in Scripture.

So are you saying that all the ‘essentials’ are there for Christians?

Pax

 

[susanlo]

So how do we know Jesus’ infallible, authorative declaration concerning the canon? How do we know the Church got it right? Is it possible the Church is using wrong Scriptures or should be using ones that are right?

It is faith. God created the earth. God formed living things and mankind. God delivered the Israelites out of Egypt and parted the Red Sea. He put Jonah in a big fish for 3 days and then brought him out. His son Jesus healed the sick and brought people back to life. He died and rose to life in 3 days. I had never considered that a God this powerful would be incapable of creating a Bible for believers.

My faith has never been in the church getting the Bible right. My faith has been that God - through his disciples - got the Bible right. I had never considered that because the apostles and disciples produced the infallible scriptures, that the future church for thousand of years would be incapable of teaching error. I had never taken it that far.

 

[rcwitness]

It is faith. God created the earth. God formed living things and mankind. God delivered the Israelites out of Egypt and parted the Red Sea. He put Jonah in a big fish for 3 days and then brought him out. His son Jesus healed the sick and brought people back to life. He died and rose to life in 3 days. I had never considered that a God this powerful would be incapable of creating a Bible for believers.

My faith has never been in the church getting the Bible right. My faith has been that God - through his disciples - got the Bible right. I had never considered that because the apostles and disciples produced the infallible scriptures, that the future church for thousand of years would be incapable of teaching error. I had never taken it that far.

Maybe because it’s all taken for granted, that God established His Church with authority for reasons precisely as the canon, by many Christians?