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

[michaelp]

clmowry:

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

The infallible source is Scripture.

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

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.

I know that in theory they do not give any new doctrine, but my problem is when someone claims to speak for God.

 

[clmowry]

michaelp:

The infallible source is Scripture.

I think we can agree that Scripture is the inerrant Word of God, but who decides the correct intepretation? What good is an inerrant Word if we have nothing but fallible interpretations?

Chuck

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

I know that in theory they do not give any new doctrine, but my problem is when someone claims to speak for God.

I know what you are saying, but we are talking about speaking for God in different senses.

What you are refering to is speaking revelation.

What we mean is speaking, as in declaring an interpretation, not speaking new revelation.

These are in different senses.

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

Why should I have to admit Christ failed. He called on us to proclaim the truth and to love each other.

Then explain how we have some 30,000 Protestant versions of the truth.

michaelp:

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. .

Which is why rejection of the Apostolic Succession is a falacy. With the Apostolic Succession we have one Church, one truth.

Reject it, and we have 30,000 churches, and 30,000 truths.

michaelp:

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)…

And therefore we need not demand every Bishop raise the dead or turn water into wine.

michaelp:

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

Faith is believing without evidence. When you demand evidence, signs and wonders, you are without faith.

God has at times seen fit to give us signs – because at the time we needed them. We are beyond that point now.

michaelp:

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 an important part of their teaching was to commission their successors, to keep the faith. When Man abandoned that, the one Church split into 30,000 churches.

 

[vern_humphrey]

clmowry:

I think we can agree that Scripture is the inerrant Word of God, but who decides the correct intepretation? What good is an inerrant Word if we have nothing but fallible interpretations?

Chuck

And that is a question that Protestants must answer. If ANY man can interpret scripture infallibly, why are there some 30,000 Protestant churches, each with its own interpretation?

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

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.

No, I understand that in theory that they cannot teach any new doctrine. My problem is not with someone teaching, but with someone claiming to speak on behalf of God and therefore claim infallibility with out showing any signs of being from God.

By the way Dennis, if I don’t talk to you again before Christmas, Merry Christmas. I am getting ready to go to my parents house and may not hear from you for a while.

Same to you Vern.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

vern humphrey:

And that is a question that Protestants must answer. If ANY man can interpret scripture infallibly, why are there some 30,000 Protestant churches, each with its own interpretation?

Again, you are just one of those denominations. You have your fallible opinion, others have theirs. We are all fallible. We cannot escape that fact.

Michael

 

[clmowry]

michaelp:

No, I understand that in theory that they cannot teach any new doctrine. My problem is not with someone teaching, but with someone claiming to speak on behalf of God and therefore claim infallibility with out showing any signs of being from God.

Why would the Church established by Christ and His apostles need further proof of being from God?

Chuck

 

[michaelp]

Then explain how we have some 30,000 Protestant versions of the truth.

Here we go again with the “30,000.”

Go here and read my opinion about that:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=26434&highlight=michaelp

Faith is believing without evidence. When you demand evidence, signs and wonders, you are without faith.

If this were the case, why did Christ appear for 40 days after His resurrection? If this were the case, what is God’s argument in Isa 40-48 all about. I STRONGLY disagree with this statement. If this were true, then all religions are equally valid, because all you have to do is to take a “leap of faith” and you don’t need any evidences.

But hey, we may just have to disagree. That is OK.

God has at times seen fit to give us signs – because at the time we needed them. We are beyond that point now.

We needed them because someone was claiming to speak on behalf of God (Deut 13, 18; 2 Cor 12:12). I bet you wish I would quit refering to these passages, don’t you? They are just very compelling to me and make alot of sense.

And an important part of their teaching was to commission their successors, to keep the faith.

I agree. But this does not necessitate infallibility.

 

[michaelp]

clmowry:

Why would the Church established by Christ and His apostles need further proof of being from God?

Chuck

I do believe the Church established by Christ and the apostles was from God. No further proof needed.

Michael

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

Again, you are just one of those denominations. You have your fallible opinion, others have theirs. We are all fallible. We cannot escape that fact.

Michael

Except that we have been constant for 2000 years, and Protestantism in about a quarter of that time splintered into 30,000+ sects.

 

[dennisknapp]

Michael,

I know what you are saying, but we are talking about speaking for God in different senses.

What you are refering to is speaking revelation.

What we mean is speaking, as in declaring an interpretation, not speaking new revelation.

These are in different senses.

I hope you and your family have a Merry Christmas!

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

Here we go again with the “30,000.”

Go here and read my opinion about that:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=26434&highlight=michaelp
.

I did read it – and you’re pole vaulting over mouse droppings The FACT is that the differences between various Protestant sects are enough to cause them to spilt and create new churches – some of which bitterly oppose each other.

And the exact numbers are immaterial – the figure of 30,000 is a nice round figure supported by evidence. But what if it’s only 20,000 or 10,000? Or if there are another 100,000 little churches that never bothered to file?

It’s still a huge number of churches – dramatic proof that abandoning the Apostolic Succession left Protestantism wandering in the wilderness.

michaelp:

If this were the case, why did Christ appear for 40 days after His resurrection? If this were the case, what is God’s argument in Isa 40-48 all about. I STRONGLY disagree with this statement. If this were true, then all religions are equally valid, because all you have to do is to take a “leap of faith” and you don’t need any evidences…

Apples and oranges – if your argument is valid, you might as well ask, why did Christ appear at all?

And you beg the question – you reject the Apostolic Succession and then demand we reject it also, so that you can pretend that all religions are equally valid.

And you apply a double standard – you raise the issue of all religions being equally valid as a negative point, but hold that any man can interpret the bible correctly – and what is the result? Thirty thousand different and quarreling sects!

michaelp:

We needed them because someone was claiming to speak on behalf of God (Deut 13, 18; 2 Cor 12:12). .

Then until a Protestant minister can produce a miracle, he can’t speak on behalf of God?

michaelp:

I agree. But this does not necessitate infallibility.

I can see why - because with 30,000 different quarreling sects, you sure don’t get infallibility!

 

[mlchance]

vern humphrey:

Faith is believing without evidence.

No, it isn’t. Believing without evidence is operating in ignorance. This is not what faith is.

Faith is, first and foremost, a gift from God. It is a personal adherence to God made possible by God’s grace. Faith always seeks understanding, but it is not thwarted when understanding does not come or is slow to arrive. the words of St. Augustine, “I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe.”

It is precisely because we have evidence for some very unbelievable things (i.e., the fact of Jesus Christ’s resurrection) that we have grounds to believe those other unbelievable things that Jesus Christ taught (i.e., that he prepares a place for us in Heaven).

Defining faith as believing without evidence strays at least very close to fideism, which is incompatible with Catholic teaching.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

mlchance:

No, it isn’t. Believing without evidence is operating in ignorance. This is not what faith is…

So where’s the evidence?

mlchance:

Faith is, first and foremost, a gift from God. It is a personal adherence to God made possible by God’s grace. Faith always seeks understanding, but it is not thwarted when understanding does not come or is slow to arrive. the words of St. Augustine, “I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe.”

And did he say to ask for a miracle before you accept God’s gift?

mlchance:

It is precisely because we have evidence for some very unbelievable things (i.e., the fact of Jesus Christ’s resurrection) that we have grounds to believe those other unbelievable things that Jesus Christ taught (i.e., that he prepares a place for us in Heaven).

We have accounts, not evidence – there’s not a shred of physical evidence for the Resurrection. We accept the accounts in the Gospels on Faith.

And we have no right to demand that God perform miracles on command.

mlchance:

Defining faith as believing without evidence strays at least very close to fideism, which is incompatible with Catholic teaching.

– Mark L. Chance.

But it isn’t fideism – it is the acceptance of the Magisterium, and the acceptance of God’s gift WITHOUT demanding signs and miracles that is the key to Catholic faith.

 

[mlchance]

I never said word one about demanding signs or miracles, so let’s drop that ball. Now that that’s done, I can’t help but notice that your counter-argument is basically without substance. It’s funny how kicking the straw man out of the way has that effect.

Moving on:
vern humphrey:

We have accounts, not evidence – there’s not a shred of physical evidence for the Resurrection. We accept the accounts in the Gospels on Faith.

Maybe you believe without evidence, but I do not. Obviously there is no physical evidence for Jesus Christ’s resurrection. The physical evidence ascended to Heaven.

But, fortunately, physical evidence isn’t the only kind of evidence there is. There is also, for example, historical evidence, of which the Gospels themselves combined with sound historical method and common sense, provide a solid case. There is also logical evidence and philosophical evidence, both of which are admirably well-suited to the task at hand.

To start out with, I refer you to The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Blomberg and Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment?.

And, once again, defining faith as “believing without evidence” is itself contrary to Catholic teaching. OTOH, this formulation…
vern humphrey:

But it isn’t fideism – it is the acceptance of the Magisterium

…directly contradicts itself. You reduce faith to nothing more than a matter of submitting to authority. This reduction is exactly what fideism is. Unfortunately, blindly submitting to authority isn’t Christian faith (although it is quite close to the Islamic conception of faith).

Authority, even the authority of God, cannot be the supreme criterion of certitude, and an act of faith cannot be the primary form of human knowledge. This authority, indeed, in order to be a motive of assent, must be previously acknowledged as being certainly valid; before we believe in a proposition as revealed by God, we must first know with certitude that God exists, that He reveals such and such a proposition, and that His teaching is worthy of assent, all of which questions can and must be ultimately decided only by an act of intellectual assent based on objective evidence. Thus, fideism not only denies intellectual knowledge, but logically ruins faith itself.

Fideism, the idea that faith is based not on evidence but on submission to authority, has been condemned by the Church. In 1348, the Holy See proscribed certain fideistic propositions of Nicholas d’Autrecourt. In his two Encyclicals, one of September, 1832, and the other of July, 1834, Pope Gregory XVI condemned the political and philosophical ideas of Lamenais. On 8 September, 1840, Bautain was required to subscribe to several propositions directly opposed to Fideism, the first and the fifth of which read as follows:

• “Human reason is able to prove with certitude the existence of God; faith, a heavenly gift, is posterior to revelation, and therefore cannot be properly used against the atheist to prove the existence of God.”
• “The use of reason precedes faith and, with the help of revelation and grace, leads to it.”

The same proposition were subscribed to by Bonnetty on 11 June, 1855. In his Letter of 11 December, 1862, to the Archbishop of Munich, Pius IX, while condemning Frohschammer’s naturalism, affirms the ability of human reason to reach certitude concerning the fundamental truths of the moral and religious order.

Finally, the First Vatican Council teaches as a dogma of Catholic faith that “one true God and Lord can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason by means of the things that are made” (Const., De Fide Catholicâ", Sess. III, can. i, De Revelatione; cf. Granderath, “Constitutiones dogmaticae Conc. Vatic.”, Freiburg, 1892, p. 32).

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

mlchance:

I never said word one about demanding signs or miracles, so let’s drop that ball.

You entered an on-going debate, and now you want us to change posts made before you entered to conform to what you want them to say?

The argument I am opposing is (Michael is free to insert corrections) is “the Apostolic Succession is wrong because Bishops nowadays do not perform miracles.”

That IS demanding signs. And an illogical position, since it only demands signs from Catholics, while accepting Protestant interpretations.

mlchance:

Now that that’s done, I can’t help but notice that your counter-argument is basically without substance. It’s funny how kicking the straw man out of the way has that effect.

And which strawman was that?

mlchance:

Maybe you believe without evidence, but I do not. Obviously there is no physical evidence for Jesus Christ’s resurrection. The physical evidence ascended to Heaven.

But, fortunately, physical evidence isn’t the only kind of evidence there is. There is also, for example, historical evidence, of which the Gospels themselves combined with sound historical method and common sense, provide a solid case. There is also logical evidence and philosophical evidence, both of which are admirably well-suited to the task at hand…

Hebrews 11,1 “Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence 2 of things not seen.”

The Greek makes it clear that Faith is evidence or “proof” (one interpretation of the word “Elenchos”) and not the other way 'round.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

michaelp,

Here we go again with the “30,000.”

Go here and read my opinion about that:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthre…hlight=michaelp

Have you read David A. Barrett’s *World Christian Encyclopedia. *I have. The articles you cite above either lack scholastic rigor or scholastic integrity.

For each and every country listed in Barrett’s encyclopedic reference, he list JUST ONE denomination of Roman Catholic Church. You can check it out for yourself. I did. It seems the author of the articles you cite, Eric Svendsen, isn’t interested in truth, but is more interested in polemics.

Nonetheless, Webster’s definition of “denomination” is a “religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body.” Using Webster’s definition, there’s just one Catholic Church, right? Using Webster’s definition, can you tell me how many Protestant denominations there are? I doubt this is even possible, as there too many to count with new ones popping up every week.

For example, according to Baptist scholar, the late William B. Lipphard, former president of the Associated Church Press, and twenty-year editor of the Baptist publication Missions Magazine, “Baptists have no hierarchy, no centralized control of religious activity, no headquarters that conduct an’oversight’ of churches–or liturgies, practices, or regulations. The local Baptist parish is a law unto itself.” (*Religions of America, *Second Edition, Leo Rosen, ed., 1975, pg. 26-27).

Given Webster’s definition of “denomination,” it seems every Baptist parish is it’s own “denomination,” right? That’s a heck of a lot of “denominations” no? I’d say that 30,000 is a tragically LOW estimate given Webster’s definition of denomination, yet the Catholic Church remains at JUST ONE.

Perhaps *Protestant *author J. Leslie Dunstan can explain it better for you … from his book Protestantism:

Protestantism is one of the three main divisions of the universal Christian Church, which together with the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches make up one world-wide religion. Protestantism is the most recent of the developments within Christianity, having a relatively short history of slightly more than four centuries; the other two branches of the faith have histories going back to the earliest days of the Christian era. Moreover, compared to the unity which characterizes those other branches, Protestantism is divided within itself among hundreds of separate organizations, some of which deny all relationship to others. The many denominations and sects have differing beliefs and carry on a variety of practices, which give them the appearance of being distinct from one another.

(*Protestantism, *by J. Leslie Dunstan, (New York: George Braziller, 1962), p. 9)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

michaelp,

From the above post, Protestant authors seem to honestly admit of a tragic disunity within Protestantism. So, I can’t help but judge protestantism by its wildly variant fruits.

Before I became confirmed in the Catholic Church, I honestly tried to learn more about what Protestants believed. I had no particular loyalty to Catholicism, but wanted to find a Church based upon its beliefs, its theology. So many people base their choice of religion on comparatively unimportant “feel good” items, like a wonderful choir or lively youth ministry. However, I needed to know what they taught. Did they teach the truth, no matter how good or bad they could sing?

So I bought some books and was astonished to find that it is quite difficult to learn what a particular Protestant denomination teaches. The remarks above by Baptist scholars is what I seemed to find everywhere I looked, so it seemed to me that Protestants taught so many wildly variant things that it was frustrating to know for certain anything dogmatic about their teachings that would not change as soon as I moved to a new duty station (I’m in the military).

In fact, my Protestant co-workers lament over the difficulty in finding a Protestant parish that they agree with every time they move.

It seems the only thing Protestants had in common were a 66-book Bible, and some fuzzy notion of faith alone, but everywhere I looked, the word “faith” was defined differently and the doctrine “faith alone” was taught differently. What I concluded was that the common characteristic about being Protestant was that they “protested.” They protested those other baptists, they protested the Presbyterians, the Lutherans, the Methodists. But the thing that united them all was that they protested against the Catholics. I even know a Seventh-day Baptist pastor who teaches that guys who worship on Sunday are going to hell. So what do Protestants believe that will not change depeding upon the pastor preaching it?

Even Martin Luther seemed to lament over the wildly variant doctrines that were born of his Sola Scriptura movement:

There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams. (Martin Luther, as cited in Ray, S., Faith of Our Fathers)

In another place Luther laments again …

Since the downfall of Popery and the cessation of excommunications and spiritual penalties, the people have learned to despise the word of God. They no longer care for the churches; they have ceased to fear and honor God…After throwing off the yoke of the Pope, everyone wishes to live as he pleases. [They say] ‘we will spend the day like Lutherans. Drunkenness has come upon us like a deluge.’ If God had not closed my eyes, and if I had foreseen these scandals, I would never have begun to teach the gospel." (WL 6, 920)

Luther confesses…

I confess… that I am more negligent than I was under the Pope and there is now nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel, as was fomerly seen among monks and priests." (WL 9. 1311)

In a letter to Zwingli, Luther writes…

If the world last long it will be again necessary, on account of the different interpretations of Scripture which now exist, that to preserve the unity of faith we should receive the Councils and decrees and fly to them for refuge." (Contra Zuingli et Oecol. cited in “Sola Scriptura: A Blueprint For Anarchy” by Patrick Madrid)

Given it’s fruits, it seems *Sola Scriptura *has failed as an epistemological principle.