Was the early church "high and dry" being without Scripture until the 3rd centrury?

[itsjustdave1988]

“You accept nothing more than Protestant tradition as authoritative?”

Sorry, perhaps I made a presumption. Do you accept a 73-book Bible or a 66-book Bible? If the latter, then I don’t think my claim above is incorrect. I hope that you will study if further, but for now, if you claim only 66-books of the Bible to be the written Word of God, then I’d say this is based upon nothing but Protestant tradition.

 

[michaelp]

itsjustdave1988:

Sorry, perhaps I made a presumption. Do you accept a 73-book Bible or a 66-book Bible? If the latter, then I don’t think my claim above is incorrect. I hope that you will study if further, but for now, if you claim only 66-books of the Bible to be the written Word of God, then I’d say this is based upon nothing but Protestant tradition.

I have been in lengthy discussion about this issue on other threads. As it stands now, I accept the canon of the Protestant Bible, but not because I blindly follow the Protestants, but because the evidence (here we go again) suggests that it is correct.

But, as for your Daniel issue, I will have to reserve judgement until I study more.

Thanks for the challenge to look in to.

Michael

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

I am not sure that I would totally agree with this. But it finally comes down to our opinion since we have been through this on many other threads.

But the Ransom to Satan theory was held by the majority of the Church until the 11th century. That is a direct contradiction to the satisfaction to God theory. But we both see this as a development.

Michael

As I stated before:

This atonement made to the devil I think is misrepresented here. It is not as if before Anselm people had no accurate understanding of the atonement, just an emerging one.

In the book, Augustine through the Ages it states, “Although Augustine uses the language of payment [to the devil], the nerve of his argument concerns justice. Unjust and erring humanity long ago found itself in the grip of evil (the devil) by its own free consent to wrongdoing. The evil power justly held sway over humanity ‘until he [the devil] slew the Just Human One [Christ], in whom he could point out nothing worthy of death’ (lib. arb. 3.10.31.) In Roman law a false accuser became himself culpable; so the devil forfeited his status as tormentor. All humanity, believing in and identifying with the just, slain Christ, can find restoration with him to eternal life. Christ has entered into evil and broken its power.”

And I would say that this is not a contradiction because:

“Augustine also adopted the notion of a dept owed to God, which he attached to the theme of Christ’s sacrifice. By the time of his writing to Simplicianus (396), commenting on Romans 7 and 9, he states that ‘all humankind… is a mess of sin, owing to be punished by the supreme divine justice.’ (Simpl. 1.2.16). And yet, ‘you are dead to the punishment of the law through the body of Christ, through which the sins are forgiven that bound us to legal punishment’ (1.1.17). And in that same year Augustine writes: ‘[Christ] died because of our sins, taken in his flesh from our penalty’ (c. Faust. 14.6).”

So, the issue is not so black and white like Michael presents it. As I have shown, Augustine could be said to hold to both and not commit a contradiction in his beliefs.

 

[michaelp]

As I stated before:

This atonement made to the devil I think is misrepresented here. It is not as if before Anselm people had no accurate understanding of the atonement, just an emerging one.

In the book, Augustine through the Ages it states, “Although Augustine uses the language of payment [to the devil], the nerve of his argument concerns justice. Unjust and erring humanity long ago found itself in the grip of evil (the devil) by its own free consent to wrongdoing. The evil power justly held sway over humanity ‘until he [the devil] slew the Just Human One [Christ], in whom he could point out nothing worthy of death’ (lib. arb. 3.10.31.) In Roman law a false accuser became himself culpable; so the devil forfeited his status as tormentor. All humanity, believing in and identifying with the just, slain Christ, can find restoration with him to eternal life. Christ has entered into evil and broken its power.”

And I would say that this is not a contradiction because:

“Augustine also adopted the notion of a dept owed to God, which he attached to the theme of Christ’s sacrifice. By the time of his writing to Simplicianus (396), commenting on Romans 7 and 9, he states that ‘all humankind… is a mess of sin, owing to be punished by the supreme divine justice.’ (Simpl. 1.2.16). And yet, ‘you are dead to the punishment of the law through the body of Christ, through which the sins are forgiven that bound us to legal punishment’ (1.1.17). And in that same year Augustine writes: ‘[Christ] died because of our sins, taken in his flesh from our penalty’ (c. Faust. 14.6).”

So, the issue is not so black and white like Michael presents it. As I have shown, Augustine could be said to hold to both and not commit a contradiction in his beliefs.

OK. Now apply that to Scripture being the ultimate authority and fatih alone. There are times when Augustine (and other church fathers) will use language that is in concert with Scripture being the ultimate authority and language of faith alone. So, these doctrines were in development as well. Usually doctrines are only better studied and understood in the midst of controversy. I don’t know why God waits until He does to bring the Church to a fuller understanding of certian things, but history shows that He does.

He waited until the 4th century to clearly define the Trinity and the hypostatic union. Until that time people in the Church held various false opinioins.

He also waited until this time to clearly define issues of humanity and sin.

He waited until the 11th century to before great development in the atonement.

And in my opinion, He waited until the 16th century for a more clear definition of soteriology and revelation.

And as a side, I think that history will see the last two centuries have been focused on the development of our understanding of the last times (but this is a whole other issue).

My point being, I don’t believe in the development of revelation since the apostles, but in our development in our understanding of revelation since then. Scripture is rich and has taken much time for us to work through it. I believe that we have a better understanding today than they did in the first century. And (I am REALLY going to get into trouble for this one–I might even be called the “L” word), I believe that we have a better understanding of doctrine, systematically defined, than the Apostles. I just throw that out there just to show you all how “out to lunch” I REALLY am.

I think that the Apostles struggled with issues early in their Apostleship. This does not mean that what they said wasn’t true, but that it was in development. I believe that Paul in his early letters was more timid about the deity of Christ than he was in his later ones. I believe that he was stuggling through some of these issues and its implications with monotheism. In other words, I don’t believe that the Apostles were suddenly zapped with full understanding of the Gospel when they were “commissioned.” Nor do I think that they understood all of its implications. Therefore, I think that John’s revelation about the 1000 year millennium was the first time that anyone, including Paul (but he was dead at this time) heard of 1000 years. This is why you would not find it previously.

All of this to say, I believe that understanding of doctrine is progressive, and not immeidate for anyone.I believe that when Scripture and history is viewed in such a way, it make A LOT more sense. It may be uncomfortable, but I follow by the dictum that “the palatability of a doctrine does not determine its veracity.”

Now I am in big trouble, aren’t I?

Michael

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

OK. Now apply that to Scripture being the ultimate authority and fatih alone. There are times when Augustine (and other church fathers) will use language that is in concert with Scripture being the ultimate authority and language of faith alone. So, these doctrines were in development as well. Usually doctrines are only better studied and understood in the midst of controversy. I don’t know why God waits until He does to bring the Church to a fuller understanding of certian things, but history shows that He does.

He waited until the 4th century to clearly define the Trinity and the hypostatic union. Until that time people in the Church held various false opinioins.

He also waited until this time to clearly define issues of humanity and sin.

He waited until the 11th century to before great development in the atonement.

And in my opinion, He waited until the 16th century for a more clear definition of soteriology and revelation.

And as a side, I think that history will see the last two centuries have been focused on the development of our understanding of the last times (but this is a whole other issue).

My point being, I don’t believe in the development of revelation since the apostles, but in our development in our understanding of revelation since then. Scripture is rich and has taken much time for us to work through it. I believe that we have a better understanding today than they did in the first century. And (I am REALLY going to get into trouble for this one–I might even be called the “L” word), I believe that we have a better understanding of doctrine, systematically defined, than the Apostles. I just throw that out there just to show you all how “out to lunch” I REALLY am.

I think that the Apostles struggled with issues early in their Apostleship. This does not mean that what they said wasn’t true, but that it was in development. I believe that Paul in his early letters was more timid about the deity of Christ than he was in his later ones. I believe that he was stuggling through some of these issues and its implications with monotheism. In other words, I don’t believe that the Apostles were suddenly zapped with full understanding of the Gospel when they were “commissioned.” Nor do I think that they understood all of its implications. Therefore, I think that John’s revelation about the 1000 year millennium was the first time that anyone, including Paul (but he was dead at this time) heard of 1000 years. This is why you would not find it previously.

All of this to say, I believe that understanding of doctrine is progressive, and not immeidate for anyone.I believe that when Scripture and history is viewed in such a way, it make A LOT more sense. It may be uncomfortable, but I follow by the dictum that “the palatability of a doctrine does not determine its veracity.”

Now I am in big trouble, aren’t I?

Michael

Do you not see that sola scriptura and sola fide contradict the teachings of the previous 1500 years? Yes, there are references to Scripture as authoritative and that faith is necessary, but this still believed by the Catholic Church today.

Here is a thought. Which of our traditions are more in line with Church history?

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

That is right. The Reformation was a rejection of Tradition as being authoritative along side that of Scripture. That is the same thing that I have a problem with…

And that’s where they went wrong. And that’s why you have thousands of Protestant Churches, all at odds with each other, unable to agree on what the truth really is.

Protestantism didn’t reform Christianity, it broke it into a thousand parts.

michaelp:

I would go along with this model also if we had apostles who were verified as apostles according to the rules that Paul laid out in 2 Cor 12:12.

And as you see if you read the whole passage, Paul, who was not one of the original Apostles, was performing such signs.

If you hold that church leaders today must also perform signs on command, is that not blasphmey? Are you not tempting God?

 

[JOE_OBERR]

michaelp:

… I stand on the outside looking in and find no warrent for apostolic succession in Scripture. Scripture is the only varified source for revelation that I know of. …

Have a great night,

Michael

Michael,

Where did God say say that apostolic succession must be found in the Scriptures in order for it to be a valid concept/practice?

Joe

 

[vern_humphrey]

JOE OBERR:

Michael,

Where did God say say that apostolic succession must be found in the Scriptures in order for it to be a valid concept/practice?

Joe

Where did God say which books should be included in the New Testament?

Michael wants to use Peter as the authority for Paul being canonical (and Paul for his own personal interpretation of Apostleship.)

But what epistle can he use as the authority for Peter’s epistles? And what epistle is the authority for THAT epistle? And so on and so on.

Clearly, without Tradition, there can be no New Testament. And if the Apostilic Succession is invalid, what of both Tradition and the New Testament?

Further, if the Apostolic Succession is invalid, then there should be a coherent Protestant doctrine – but there isn’t. Going by the IRS applications for tax-exempt status for churches, there are over 30,000 Protestant sects in the US, alone. When Protestants abandoned the Apostolic Succession, the resulting churches came unglued and broke into thousands of fragments.

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

Do you not see that sola scriptura and sola fide contradict the teachings of the previous 1500 years? Yes, there are references to Scripture as authoritative and that faith is necessary, but this still believed by the Catholic Church today.

Here is a thought. Which of our traditions are more in line with Church history?

We both have much in line with Church history and much we would not agree with. I could list all the agreements but this woudl be superflous at this point. We went through this much earlier Dennis.

 

[michaelp]

And that’s where they went wrong. And that’s why you have thousands of Protestant Churches, all at odds with each other, unable to agree on what the truth really is.

Protestantism didn’t reform Christianity, it broke it into a thousand parts.

But to someone like me, on the outside looking in, you are just one of those many different options. I am here asking what makes you all right and the rest wrong. That is what this is about.

And as you see if you read the whole passage, Paul, who was not one of the original Apostles, was performing such signs.

If you hold that church leaders today must also perform signs on command, is that not blasphmey? Are you not tempting God?

It is the criteria that God put down many times in Scripture, not me. I think that it is reasonable and I am glad he did. This is why I don’t accept the modern day Chrarismatic movement. They think that they can bypass any true sign and wonders and prophecy and replace them with healing ailing stomach aches and obscure prophecy that does not get fulfilled.

Anyone who claims to speak for God infallibly must show the signs that God requires (Deut 13, 18; 2 Cor 12:12). I don’t understand why you think, even though the Apostles did this themselves, that the apostles infallible successors who claim to speak for God and just set this aside.

If the magisterium said that they were apostolic successors that carried on the traditions of the apostles, but did not claim to speak infallibly for God, I would not have any problem with this. This is what the Eastern Orthodox church believes, this is what other believers of apostolic succession believe. But Rome includes infalliblity and that is a HUGE difference. At that point they place themselves, not in the seat of Moses (an idiom for teaching authority that in no way implies infalibility), but in the seat of one who speaks infallibly on behalf of God–a prophet.

Now can you at least understand my difficulties. I believe in apostolic succession as long as this means that we carry the teaching of the Apostles. I don’t even mind if you place unwritten teachings in their as long as you don’t claim infallibity.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

JOE OBERR:

Michael,

Where did God say say that apostolic succession must be found in the Scriptures in order for it to be a valid concept/practice?

Joe

Apostlolic succession is becoming misleading. If you define apostolic succession as the carrying on the teaching of the Apostles, that is fine. We are all successors of the Apostles. It is infallibility that is what I don’t find.

Where did God say that infallible apostolic succession must be found in Scripture? He says that the signs of a true apostle will be evident (2 Cor. 12:12). So, I guess that you could say that He laid down the criteria for anyone who made such claims.

Welcome Joe, good to hear from you,

Michael

 

[michaelp]

But what epistle can he use as the authority for Peter’s epistles? And what epistle is the authority for THAT epistle? And so on and so on.

Clearly, without Tradition, there can be no New Testament. And if the Apostilic Succession is invalid, what of both Tradition and the New Testament?

Vern, both you and I are not infallible, right?

OK, seeing as how we are not both infallible, we have the same starting place.

You fallibly have an opinion the the Church was infallible in its declairation of the canon.

I fallibly have an opinion the the Church was correct in its definition of the canon.

Not much difference. You are trying to avoid the fallibility factor. Neither of us can.

Now, since this is the case, we both just operate on moral certianty, not absolute certianty (which can only be found in mathmatics and analytical statements). Moral certianty is only as good as the evidence. So, both of us must operate on our own fallible interpretation of the evidence. You build through your own fallibleness evidence of how you think the Church is infallible in order to establish a canon. I build through my own fallibleness my evidence on how I think the Canon is correct. I just take out the middle man. But your method is no better off in the end. All that matters is the evidence that builds our moral certianty.

Michael

 

[clmowry]

michaelp:

All that matters is the evidence that builds our moral certianty.

How can you have any moral certianty? Given that their you have no infallible source of moral law?

Chuck

 

[michaelp]

clmowry:

How can you have any moral certianty? Given that their you have no infallible source of moral law?

Chuck

Chuck, moral certianty simply means that people can be certain about things without being absolutely certian. It is a term in epistomology that philosophers have always recognized.

In other words, there is always contengencies in everything we believe. But these contingencies do not impede in our obligation to believe of follow them. There are differing levels of moral certainty.
For example, I am morally certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, but not infallibly certain, since there will always be a small possibility that something could prevent that (contengency). I am also morally certian that my car will get me to work, even though there is the possibility that it won’t. I am more certain about the sun than I am about my car, but in both cases I have moral assurance and therefore a moral obligation to act according to this certianty. (Hence, “moral” certainty).

As a side not, many insane people sometimes do not have the capacity to act on moral certianty (“What About Bob” with Bill Murray shows an example of someone who lacked the capacity to consistantly act on moral certianty).

This is why Postmodern relativism is an “insane” philosophy. Many Postmoderns will not act in belief in God because they do not have “absolute” certianty. They fail to distinguish between moral and absolute certianty.

Michael

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

But to someone like me, on the outside looking in, you are just one of those many different options. I am here asking what makes you all right and the rest wrong. That is what this is about.

To think that requires you to admit, at least by implication, that Christ failed. And you can’t be a Christian and hold that particular philosophy.

Christ didn’t fail – Man failed, when he decided he could do it all on his own.

michaelp:

It is the criteria that God put down many times in Scripture, not me. I think that it is reasonable and I am glad he did. This is why I don’t accept the modern day Chrarismatic movement. They think that they can bypass any true sign and wonders and prophecy and replace them with healing ailing stomach aches and obscure prophecy that does not get fulfilled.

Anyone who claims to speak for God infallibly must show the signs that God requires (Deut 13, 18; 2 Cor 12:12).

Again, if you take that position, you must admit, at least implicitly, that Christ failed. Because who shows those signs today?

But to insist on signs is to make several errors. The first is to assume that we are ALWAYS entitled to miracles – we are not. We have no warrant to demand God constantly exhibit visible wonders to us outside of all science and nature.

Next, we have another implicit assumption – that God does these things for no reason. In the early days, signs WERE necessary – because the world was to be converted. Those of us who are the product of almost 2000 years of Christianity do not need such signs.

Finally, it denegrates the value of faith. Remember, faith deals with things NOT seen.

michaelp:

I don’t understand why you think, even though the Apostles did this themselves, that the apostles infallible successors who claim to speak for God and just set this aside.

They didn’t – there have always been signs.

But we have no right to DEMAND that God give us a sign.

michaelp:

If the magisterium said that they were apostolic successors that carried on the traditions of the apostles, but did not claim to speak infallibly for God, I would not have any problem with this. This is what the Eastern Orthodox church believes, this is what other believers of apostolic succession believe. .

No, they don’t – the Orthodox Church claims to teach the truth, and they claim it based on the Apostolic Succession.

michaelp:

Now can you at least understand my difficulties. I believe in apostolic succession as long as this means that we carry the teaching of the Apostles. I don’t even mind if you place unwritten teachings in their as long as you don’t claim infallibity.

Michael

It means Christ created a Church to last for all time. And to do that, He commissioned his Apostles. They, in turn, commissioned successors – to believe otherwise is to accept that Christ failed.

And when you look at the plethora of Protestant churches, all with widely differing teachings, you see that Christ succeeded, but Man failed when he broke with the Apostolic Succession.

 

[clmowry]

Though I now understand the terms you are using, I guess I still have the same question.

I understand that you can be “morally certain” about many things, but how can you be “absolutley certain” about anything that has to do with morals, given that you do not have an infallible source of moral law?

Are you not in effect left with no alternative but “moral relativisim” if you can have no “absolute certainty” when it comes to morals?

Chuck

…goes to look for a dictionary…

michaelp:

Chuck, moral certianty simply means that people can be certain about things without being absolutely certian. It is a term in epistomology that philosophers have always recognized.

In other words, there is always contengencies in everything we believe. But these contingencies do not impede in our obligation to believe of follow them. There are differing levels of moral certainty.
For example, I am morally certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, but not infallibly certain, since there will always be a small possibility that something could prevent that (contengency). I am also morally certian that my car will get me to work, even though there is the possibility that it won’t. I am more certain about the sun than I am about my car, but in both cases I have moral assurance and therefore a moral obligation to act according to this certianty. (Hence, “moral” certainty).

As a side not, many insane people sometimes do not have the capacity to act on moral certianty (“What About Bob” with Bill Murray shows an example of someone who lacked the capacity to consistantly act on moral certianty).

This is why Postmodern relativism is an “insane” philosophy. Many Postmoderns will not act in belief in God because they do not have “absolute” certianty. They fail to distinguish between moral and absolute certianty.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

To think that requires you to admit, at least by implication, that Christ failed. And you can’t be a Christian and hold that particular philosophy.

Christ didn’t fail – Man failed, when he decided he could do it all on his own.

Why should I have to admit Christ failed. He called on us to proclaim the truth and to love each other. Love is said to be the greatest sign that we have to represent Christ with. We are not infallible in our love, but this does not mean that Christ failed.

Vern, God is in control of all things Eph 1:11. He is not going to fail, even though we do not understand His ways sometimes.

Again, if you take that position, you must admit, at least implicitly, that Christ failed. Because who shows those signs today?

Signs are only necessary for people who speak for God. If someone is not speaking for God, no signs needed. In other words, Prophets only came when God had something new to say. He obviously does not have anything new to say since there is no one who meets the criterial that HE LAID DOWN, not me (Deut 13, 18; 2 Cor 12:12).

But to insist on signs is to make several errors. The first is to assume that we are ALWAYS entitled to miracles – we are not. We have no warrant to demand God constantly exhibit visible wonders to us outside of all science and nature.

I don’t necessarily demand this, He does.

Next, we have another implicit assumption – that God does these things for no reason. In the early days, signs WERE necessary – because the world was to be converted. Those of us who are the product of almost 2000 years of Christianity do not need such signs.

They were only necessary because God was giving new revelation.

Finally, it denegrates the value of faith. Remember, faith deals with things NOT seen.

Faith is not blind faith. Read Isa 40-48. God calls them all fools for not looking to the evidence.

They didn’t – there have always been signs.

But we have no right to DEMAND that God give us a sign.

Again, God demands them, not us. That is why all the prophets, Christ, and the apostles all showed them.

No, they don’t – the Orthodox Church claims to teach the truth, and they claim it based on the Apostolic Succession.

But they don’t claim infallibility for their bishops. This is my primary problem.

It means Christ created a Church to last for all time. And to do that, He commissioned his Apostles. They, in turn, commissioned successors – to believe otherwise is to accept that Christ failed.

Again, in a general sense, we are all successors to the apostles. The Church is apostolic because it follows the teaching of the apostles. But we are only to the degree that we follow their teachings.

And when you look at the plethora of Protestant churches, all with widely differing teachings, you see that Christ succeeded, but Man failed when he broke with the Apostolic Succession.

Again, you are just one in among many. We both have this problem.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

clmowry:

Though I now understand the terms you are using, I guess I still have the same question.

I understand that you can be “morally certain” about many things, but how can you be “absolutley certain” about anything that has to do with morals, given that you do not have an infallible source of moral law?

Are you not in effect left with no alternative but “moral relativisim” if you can have no “absolute certainty” when it comes to morals?

Chuck

…goes to look for a dictionary…

By definition, neither you or I can be absolutely certian about anything. But we are morally abligated to follow the evidence (like the sun). It is not unreasonable to say that I have dedicated my life to Christ and I would die for Him and I am only morally certain about this, because that is all I can be. Faith make up the rest.

Michael

 

[clmowry]

michaelp:

By definition, neither you or I can be absolutely certian about anything. But we are morally abligated to follow the evidence (like the sun). It is not unreasonable to say that I have dedicated my life to Christ and I would die for Him and I am only morally certain about this, because that is all I can be. Faith make up the rest.

Michael

I guess I’m not asking the question right?

I know this isn’t what you meant above, but to use your words…it’s the “make up the rest” part that I’m concerned about.

How can you have any certainty what it is that Christ expects of you in dedicating your life to Him, barring direct revelation accompanied by signs and wonders, given that you have no infallible source of moral law?

Chuck

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

They were only necessary because God was giving new revelation.

Faith is not blind faith. Read Isa 40-48. God calls them all fools for not looking to the evidence.

Again, God demands them, not us. That is why all the prophets, Christ, and the apostles all showed them.

But they don’t claim infallibility for their bishops. This is my primary problem.

Again, in a general sense, we are all successors to the apostles. The Church is apostolic because it follows the teaching of the apostles. But we are only to the degree that we follow their teachings.

Again, you are just one in among many. We both have this problem.

Michael

Michael,

Do you think that Apostolic Sucession means that the Pope or Bishops can teach “new doctrine” because they claim to speak for God, and so need to perform certain signs?

I think this is a misunderstanding of what Apostolic Sucession is. The Magisterium only infallibly interperates that which is reveled, it does not create anything new.