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

[vern_humphrey]

StubbleSpark:

What if my conclusions are wrong?

Would you charitably show me how and then direct me to the fullness of truth? Our ideas are different enough so that we know that we both cannot possibly be correct.

Here’s the problem – I think Michael will agree “we both cannot possibly be correct,” and therefore that the thousands of Protestand sects with their differing and conflicting doctrines cannot be correct, either.

He falls back on, “I regard Catholics as just another sect.”

But the ground crumbles under THAT position – if Catholicism is “just another sect” then NO ONE is correct.

And that means Jesus failed!

When we come face to face with that conclusion, we have to rethink – SOME ONE must be “correct.” And it has to be the Church that has maintained consistency ever since the time of Christ.

 

[StubbleSpark]

Here, I will plainly reiterate my first two requests for Michaelp:

1. Find anywhere on this site a statement, by a Catholic, who says, “There was no Scripture before 300 AD.” Where “Scripture” = the writings that would eventually be canonized into the Bible and NOT “Scripture” = the Bible itself.
2. Tell me one thing you are free to do as a double “Sola” Protestant that is denied for me, the average Catholic. (Hint: there are things, but I would not be proud of them.)

 

[StubbleSpark]

vern humphrey:

Here’s the problem – I think Michael will agree “we both cannot possibly be correct,” and therefore that the thousands of Protestand sects with their differing and conflicting doctrines cannot be correct, either.

He falls back on, “I regard Catholics as just another sect.”

But the ground crumbles under THAT position – if Catholicism is “just another sect” then NO ONE is correct.

And that means Jesus failed!

When we come face to face with that conclusion, we have to rethink – SOME ONE must be “correct.” And it has to be the Church that has maintained consistency ever since the time of Christ.

Recently, in my research on countering the DaVinci Code, I read an article by a prominent Protestant apologist who said something interesting about the book. He said that there is a growing movement pressuring Christians to stop believing in the Divine Christ and to just consider Christ the Man. This, he said, is how people try to make Christianity “just another religion” with a human prophet and fallible doctrines imbedded in the philosophy.

The problem is, it is a lie. Christianity is the only faith where we believe that the same Divine Power that created the entire universe died for us slimy humans out of a deep sense of love.

The same dynamic is at play when Protestants try to relegate Christ’s Church to “just another sect/denomination.” It is a selfish attempt to diminish the meaning of Our Savior’s actions and words to make the playing field equal.

Trouble is, it is a lie.

 

[michaelp]

1. Find anywhere on this site a statement, by a Catholic, who says, “There was no Scripture before 300 AD.” Where “Scripture” = the writings that would eventually be canonized into the Bible and NOT “Scripture” = the Bible itself.

This is the impression that I had previously recieved. But now that we have had this thread for so long now, I believe that people understand and agree with my original post.

1. Tell me one thing you are free to do as a double “Sola” Protestant that is denied for me, the average Catholic. (Hint: there are things, but I would not be proud of them.)

I still do not get this one. I am not trying to dodge, I just don’t understand the question. Maybe this is in response to something I said earlier, but I am not sure what. Could you provide me with a reference to this. Otherwise, I am not sure.

Michael

 

[vern_humphrey]

StubbleSpark:

Recently, in my research on countering the DaVinci Code, I read an article by a prominent Protestant apologist who said something interesting about the book. He said that there is a growing movement pressuring Christians to stop believing in the Divine Christ and to just consider Christ the Man. This, he said, is how people try to make Christianity “just another religion” with a human prophet and fallible doctrines imbedded in the philosophy.

The problem is, it is a lie. Christianity is the only faith where we believe that the same Divine Power that created the entire universe died for us slimy humans out of a deep sense of love.

The same dynamic is at play when Protestants try to relegate Christ’s Church to “just another sect/denomination.” It is a selfish attempt to diminish the meaning of Our Savior’s actions and words to make the playing field equal.

Trouble is, it is a lie.

You are absolutely right – if Christ is “just another man” then two things are true:

1. We can have another Christ at any time – just another man.
2. Revelation is continuing.

This is simply a religious-oriented version of post-modern deconstructionism. “The truth can never be known, and therefore all opinions are equally valid. So we must deconstruct all the old standards and truths.”

 

[StubbleSpark]

michaelp:

This is the impression that I had previously recieved. But now that we have had this thread for so long now, I believe that people understand and agree with my original post.

OR
No one has ever claimed there was no such thing as scripture before 300 AD. (But there was no Scripture). In other words, we agree with your statement that this illogical, and therefore would never have clung to error in the first place. This thread is based on a misunderstanding. First, your misunderstanding how Catholics use the word “Scripture.” And secondly, Catholics mistakenly reacting to what they thought was your counter-claim that Church councils in union with the Holy Spirit did not in fact infallibly discern which works were inspired and which were not.

I still do not get this one. I am not trying to dodge, I just don’t understand the question. Maybe this is in response to something I said earlier, but I am not sure what. Could you provide me with a reference to this. Otherwise, I am not sure.

Michael

For example, nowhere in Catholic doctrine does it say that I have to say a single prayer to the Blessed Mother in order to obtain salvation. If I so chose, I may go an entire lifetime as a Catholic without a single appeal to the Mother of God and still go to Heaven – just like you, a Protestant.

BUT

I can also chose to spend time with the Blessed Virgin in prayer if I want to because the Catholic Church says that such petitions are a perfectly valid way to ask others to pray for me.

So I have the freedom to do either. This is only one of several examples which I previously posted. You said you are free of interpretative tradition and can interpret the Bible on your own (as can I, a Catholic). I am asking you to name one freedom that comes from your freedom from our interpretive Tradition.

What can you freely do in worship, prayer, theological understanding, study, or spirituality now that someone in the Church cannot do?

In other words, I do not think you are any more free than I am when it comes to these things. In fact, when I compare my past experiences as a Baptist with my present experiences as a Catholic, I cannot think of a single thing I could do as a Baptist that I cannot do as a Catholic (pray directly to God, read the Bible on my own, etc). But I can think of several pages of things I can do as a Catholic that I never could do as a Baptist. What about you?

 

[michaelp]

No one has ever claimed there was no such thing as scripture before 300 AD. (But there was no Scripture). In other words, we agree with your statement that this illogical, and therefore would never have clung to error in the first place. This thread is based on a misunderstanding. First, your misunderstanding how Catholics use the word “Scripture.” And secondly, Catholics mistakenly reacting to what they thought was your counter-claim that Church councils in union with the Holy Spirit did not in fact infallibly discern which works were inspired and which were not.

Cool. Thanks.

So I have the freedom to do either. This is only one of several examples which I previously posted. You said you are free of interpretative tradition and can interpret the Bible on your own (as can I, a Catholic). I am asking you to name one freedom that comes from your freedom from our interpretive Tradition.

To disagree with Tradition.

What can you freely do in worship, prayer, theological understanding, study, or spirituality now that someone in the Church cannot do?

Disagree with the established RC dogma.

In other words, I do not think you are any more free than I am when it comes to these things. In fact, when I compare my past experiences as a Baptist with my present experiences as a Catholic, I cannot think of a single thing I could do as a Baptist that I cannot do as a Catholic (pray directly to God, read the Bible on my own, etc). But I can think of several pages of things I can do as a Catholic that I never could do as a Baptist. What about you?

I am not a Baptist.

Michael

 

[Sherlock]

Michaelp,

You wrote, “To disagree with Tradition.”

This is not a very satisfactory answer. You are essentially saying then that disagreement, in and of itself, is a value to put above the truth of Tradition. That is rather foolish—demonstrate that the truth of Tradition is not truth but is false, and then disagreement has some merit. However, disagreement for its own sake sounds like an adolescent response to authority.

You wrote: “Disagree with the established RC dogma.”

I will simply repeat the above: if you can’t show that the “established RC dogma” is false, then disagreeing with it seems pointless and adolescent.

You wrote: “I am not a Baptist.”

Another unsatisfactory response: answering Stubblespark’s question did not require that you be a Baptist. One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out the point of Stubblespark’s question, so this just looks like a sloppy attempt to evade answering it.

 

[michaelp]

Sherlock:

Michaelp,

You wrote, “To disagree with Tradition.”

This is not a very satisfactory answer. You are essentially saying then that disagreement, in and of itself, is a value to put above the truth of Tradition. That is rather foolish—demonstrate that the truth of Tradition is not truth but is false, and then disagreement has some merit. However, disagreement for its own sake sounds like an adolescent response to authority.

So, if I gave you an exegesis of the book of Romans that says that justification is by imputation of Christ’s alien righteousness, would you have the same freedom as others to agree or disagree. Or do you start with the presupposition that the RCC’s interpretation of Justification is correct?

You wrote: “Disagree with the established RC dogma.”

I will simply repeat the above: if you can’t show that the “established RC dogma” is false, then disagreeing with it seems pointless and adolescent.

Same as above.

You wrote: “I am not a Baptist.”

Another unsatisfactory response: answering Stubblespark’s question did not require that you be a Baptist. One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out the point of Stubblespark’s question, so this just looks like a sloppy attempt to evade answering it.

No I am not. I don’t have any necessary connection to any denomination or tradition. This does not mean I am not influenced by them, but I don’t have a NECESSARY obligation to follow them.

Once a RC adhere’s to the infallibility of tradition, in theory, you are not free to interpret Scripture on your own–“you are not smart enough” (Roman Catholics words, not mine). You are not free to think for yourself–in theory.

 

[Sherlock]

Michaelp,

Ahhh, I see the real source of the problem: you value autonomy above truth. I’m afraid, then, that we won’t ever agree, as I am interested in what is true, not in asserting my own version of it that conveniently fits my desires. It’s a bit like the original sin, isn’t it? Nothing is new under the sun…If your “truth” is contrary to another Protestant’s “truth”, then there is no such thing as absolute truth. And I’m not interested in religion-as-affirming-my-OKness, or like forms of personal-piety-as-therapy. I’m interested in knowing the truth, and then I will assent to it. I will change my life in accordance with that truth, not come up with a “truth” that is handier and “free”. I’ve been a Protestant, and frankly the relativization of truth is why I left.

 

[michaelp]

Ahhh, I see the real source of the problem: you value autonomy above truth. I’m afraid, then, that we won’t ever agree, as I am interested in what is true, not in asserting my own version of it that conveniently fits my desires.

But you fail to see that you and I are both fallible people making fallible choices. Your fallible choice is to believe that Tradition is infallible. My fallible choice is to believe that Tradition is not infallible. They are both autonomous choices arn’t they since they originate from our own fallible interpretation of history. Or do you think that you are infallible?

It’s a bit like the original sin, isn’t it? Nothing is new under the sun…If your “truth” is contrary to another Protestant’s “truth”, then there is no such thing as absolute truth.

But your “truth” is just one of the many availible. How do you know that yours is correct?

There is such thing as infallible truth, but not personal infallible knowledge of this truth since you and I start at the same place, fallibility. Therefore, we must unbiasedly look to the evidence.

And I’m not interested in religion-as-affirming-my-OKness, or like forms of personal-piety-as-therapy. I’m interested in knowing the truth, and then I will assent to it. I will change my life in accordance with that truth, not come up with a “truth” that is handier and “free”. I’ve been a Protestant, and frankly the relativization of truth is why I left.

I agree, that relativization of truth is in error. But to claim absolute certianty is also an error, since you or I cannot be absolutely certian about anything. We just do the best not to be bound by our presuppositions and traditions and search for the truth as individuals.

Michael

 

[Tim_Hayes]

MichaelP

Your whole view of reliegeous truth is based on the relativism.

The reason I asked you about the Eucharist was to get you to think about absolute truth.

Fact- God ‘hates’ idolatry and we(humans) risk almost with certainty damnation for the belief and practice of idolatry.

Catholic veiw of Eucharist is that it really becomes the body and blood of Christ, so therefor technically speaking can be worshiped, which is essentially what catholics do.

Now you left with two options, either Catholics are right or wrong in their belief/practice. If they are right then there is a logical conclusion.

If it is false, there is also a logical conclusion, that is damnaiton, - based on the first fact that God hates idolatatry.

Now I want you to tell me which one it is. This is where questions come down to absolutes.

Please answer the question and stand on your principals. Either everything including truth is relative or not, if it is relative then Christianity has no real value any more then any other belief systym.

Please ansser the question

Are catholics practicing idolatry.

If you choose to answer in the negative please provide reasoning.

In Christ

Tim

 

[vern_humphrey]

Tim Hayes:

Are catholics practicing idolatry.

If you choose to answer in the negative please provide reasoning.

In Christ

Tim

Matthew 26,26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; for this is my body.” 27 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.”

At several places in the Gospel He commands us to eat His body and drink his blood. He commands us to do this in rememberance of him.

He always says it is His body and blood we are to consume. He never says it is merely symbolic.

Therefore, unless you are prepared to say He lied, you must accept that it** is** His body and blood.

 

[Sherlock]

Michaelp,

You wrote: “But you fail to see that you and I are both fallible people making fallible choices.”

Then how do you know that God exists? How do you know that Jesus existed? Did Abraham Lincoln exist? How do you know ANYTHING, if you are fallible? Good heavens…God gave us brains for a reason.

You asked: “But your “truth” is just one of the many availible. How do you know that yours is correct?”

The “many available”? This is relativism, which I reject. Ultimately, I belive that truth is a Someone, not a something that can be divided, parsed, and set against itself. You and I have a fundamental difference in our thinking: I believe in God. I don’t believe that there’s one kind of god for you, and another for me—I believe in one God. You apparently aren’t sure of that (how can you be, since you are fallible, and according to you this renders judgements of “truth” impossible?). So, I know that my “truth” is correct because it is based on God existing; that Jesus existed; that Jesus was the Son of God; and that Jesus founded a Church. The source for my beliefs is, ultimately, not dependent upon human fallibility but on Jesus, who was true God and true man. Now, you may not believe that, but just because you can’t believe it does not render it invalid: God exists—Truth exists—regardless of your ability to see it. I am sorry that you cannot fix upon anything as truth, but that is the curse of relativism.

You wrote: “There is such thing as infallible truth, but not personal infallible knowledge of this truth since you and I start at the same place, fallibility.”

Yes, but the Church was founded by Christ. It’s “starting place”, to use your words, is not the same as your fallibility.

You wrote: “I agree, that relativization of truth is in error. But to claim absolute certianty is also an error, since you or I cannot be absolutely certian about anything. We just do the best not to be bound by our presuppositions and traditions and search for the truth as individuals.”

So, I take it that you are not certain that 2+2=4? Are you not certain that you exist? Are you uncertain, then, that God exists? Are you certain that the computer screen exists? Are you married? If so, how can you be certain? How do you know that you aren’t God, since you are fallible? I mean, you COULD be God—it’s only your fallibilty that makes you think you aren’t. I mean, one can’t be certain of anything, you know…

Wow. I can’t imagine trying to live one’s life according to your viewpoint. But then, I’m not a relativist, so I don’t have that problem.

 

[StubbleSpark]

I think MichaelP has a point.

A fundamental idea behind the infallibility of the pope and the majesterium is that WE as individuals are NOT infallible.

But there still is this aspect of choosing, which seems unavoidable. After all, in order to be Catholic, didn’t I have to choose to be one? That was part of my point in my discussion of “freedoms” in the first place – that the Church always leaves the choice up to us (it cannot deny free will).

But the Church cannot guarantee that every exercise of my free will comes with the same stamp of infallibility that comes with the doctrine proclaimed ex-cathedra. So it would appear then, that we are back to square one: I have to make a choice and I have to accept that somewhere deep down that God is guiding my decision.

But wait a tick. If God is telling me what to decide, do I still have free will? ARGG! Free will vs God’s will is like a chicken-and-egg sort of argument. It just spirals on and on – you cannot have one without the other.

Maybe we could clear things up a bit if we asked ourselves another question: Why did God give us free will? Does He like to dangle eternal human souls on that precipice between Paradise and Damnation? If He really cared for us as individuals, why not give everyone a free pass to Heaven? What does He get out of free will?

The answer: Love.

Love is an impossibility if we are thoughtless automatons programmed to obey God. True love can only come from CHOICE.

So it would seem that the big factor in choosing God requires being able to discern what is love in general and what is love of God in particular.

Here, we can join an age-old dialogue already in progress. We can examine the different types of love and see a contrast. Many times, love of self leads to behavior that the Bible says is abhorrent to God. For example: sex. Sure it is fun, but God seems to want us to behave a little more prudishly than popular culture would have us. Disease, death, abortion, poverty can all be attributed to an increase in licentiousness. Abstinence, chastity, and respect for life all fall within God’s favor and enrich both our lives and the societies where these virtues are practiced.

So, it would seem that a Church that understands God’s will would affirm these qualities and spurn the others as against the will of God. Which churches do? For starters, we can recall that at the beginning of the 1900’s, ALL Christian churches stood in unity against birth control. Then the Episcopalian (aka Anglican) Church changed its mind and ALL other churches followed suit. Except one.

What changed? Well, the times changed. People’s appetites for sex without consequence changed. But the objective nature of right and wrong did not.

One group of Christians chose to follow their libidos. One group stood by God. The same goes for abortion and homosexuality. One group changes with the times. The other group changes the times.

I think a search for evidence like this would be beneficial for quelling doubts as to whether or not one’s decisions on how to follow God’s will is in fact in harmony with God’s will and not just another personal distractor. “Faith through Reason.”

 

[michaelp]

Sherlock:

Michaelp,

You wrote: “But you fail to see that you and I are both fallible people making fallible choices.”

Then how do you know that God exists? How do you know that Jesus existed? Did Abraham Lincoln exist? How do you know ANYTHING, if you are fallible? Good heavens…God gave us brains for a reason.

You asked: “But your “truth” is just one of the many availible. How do you know that yours is correct?”

The “many available”? This is relativism, which I reject. Ultimately, I belive that truth is a Someone, not a something that can be divided, parsed, and set against itself. You and I have a fundamental difference in our thinking: I believe in God. I don’t believe that there’s one kind of god for you, and another for me—I believe in one God. You apparently aren’t sure of that (how can you be, since you are fallible, and according to you this renders judgements of “truth” impossible?). So, I know that my “truth” is correct because it is based on God existing; that Jesus existed; that Jesus was the Son of God; and that Jesus founded a Church. The source for my beliefs is, ultimately, not dependent upon human fallibility but on Jesus, who was true God and true man. Now, you may not believe that, but just because you can’t believe it does not render it invalid: God exists—Truth exists—regardless of your ability to see it. I am sorry that you cannot fix upon anything as truth, but that is the curse of relativism.

You wrote: “There is such thing as infallible truth, but not personal infallible knowledge of this truth since you and I start at the same place, fallibility.”

Yes, but the Church was founded by Christ. It’s “starting place”, to use your words, is not the same as your fallibility.

You wrote: “I agree, that relativization of truth is in error. But to claim absolute certianty is also an error, since you or I cannot be absolutely certian about anything. We just do the best not to be bound by our presuppositions and traditions and search for the truth as individuals.”

So, I take it that you are not certain that 2+2=4? Are you not certain that you exist? Are you uncertain, then, that God exists? Are you certain that the computer screen exists? Are you married? If so, how can you be certain? How do you know that you aren’t God, since you are fallible? I mean, you COULD be God—it’s only your fallibilty that makes you think you aren’t. I mean, one can’t be certain of anything, you know…

Wow. I can’t imagine trying to live one’s life according to your viewpoint. But then, I’m not a relativist, so I don’t have that problem.

Wow! How do I respond. I really don’t think you have understood my postition. Maybe you have come in too late in the thread. I am by no means a absolute relativist. You fail to see the difference between analytical and mathmatical certianty and moral certainty.

If you are interested in hearing my opinion about this, you can read my paper “Representing Christ to a Postmodern World” here: bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2452.

If you don’t read it, fine. But please don’t call me a relativist without understanding. This subject would get us way off topic in dealing with the values and failings of a postmodern or postconservative epistimology. I encourage you to study up on this though.

Michael

 

[oat_soda]

If you are interested in hearing my opinion about this, you can read my paper “Representing Christ to a Postmodern World” here: bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2452.

i read your paper. i think you have some things wrong.

Jesus is the Word of God, there will be no other Word except this one. I’m sure we both agree. Basically, everything God wanted to reveal to man was said in this Word (truth). To demonstrate that we are faithful to this revelation, we must be able to present evidence that our objective truth can be shown to have been consistently believed and handed down to us from the times of the apostles and to the Word himself 2000 yrs ago. So that, substantively, we are able to say what is absolute truth, and what is not.

Your opinion is a fantasy if you can’t demonstrate reasonably
that the bible ALONE was the sole rule of authority and truth consistently all the way back to Jesus. Which i dont think you can do.

you are not free to interpret Scripture on your own

ABSOLUTELY!!! well, only when it contradicts the Word precisley because i am fallible. Only the Word is infalllible. this way, we are not a religion founded on some guy -i.e. protestantism, luther, calvin,… etc. but on the Rock.

 

[StubbleSpark]

oat soda:

ABSOLUTELY!!! well, only when it contradicts the Word precisley because i am fallible. Only the Word is infalllible. this way, we are not a religion founded on some guy -i.e. protestantism, luther, calvin,… etc. but on the Rock.

I agree. I am just as free as you to read the Bible, and like the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Muslims, I can come to conclusions like “Jesus is not God, just a very good man.” or “The Trinity is unbiblical and therefore untrue.”

What I am not free to do is to believe these things and still call myself a Catholic. In times past, I would not dare believe things and still call myself a Christian. But since the Reformation things have changed and “Christian” can imply a much broader range of beliefs.

Look at Dan Brown. In his book the DaVinci Code, Christ is declared a non-deity who never went to the cross but spent his life happily married to Mary Magdalen. Yet when pressed for his religious orientation on his web FAQ, he considers himself Christian. He wrongly declares faith a continuum – it does not so much matter what you believe, so long as you can find yourself on that continuum somewhere.

This is relativism. Problem is, Truth is real. Truth wants to know you. Truth put out some pretty obvious hints on where to find Him. Wait a sec, that’s not a problem. That’s a solution.

 

[StubbleSpark]

It’s been so long that I thought I would just put in another message even though I have been working on analyzing your paper.

It is very well-written and I agree with its main thrust. Relativism is a scourge of our society and it threatens to drive all those who believe their faith is divine Truth straight into the ocean at the hands of an increasingly hostile tide of spiritual apathy.

But before I go anywhere else, I would like to ask a question by means of a quick digression. Your paper contains a quote from 2 Maccabees – good for you. But if you are a self-styled Protestant, I was just wondering, were you quoting that book with the understanding that it is inspired? I also noticed you were trained in a Catholic seminary. Good on ya, as the Australians say.

 

[StubbleSpark]

Okay, one more digression. It has to do with what you said about purgatory being an error: “The early church, when battling with PelagiusÕ false view of anthropology, in order to defend the doctrine of depravity (as they should have done), went to the opposite extreme and promoted the doctrines of purgatory and limbo to account for the children who, although depraved, could not exercise faith.”

Am I to understand that you believed the Church erred in promoting the doctrine of purgatory? At least you did not say the Church arbitrarily invented the concept of purgatory. It is an ancient Jewish concept:

jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=611&letter=P

Also, (and this is less digression and more set up for my response to your paper) I think it would interesting if you took a look at the defense of Church doctrines from a Catholic perspective. My hope is that instead of a Church that argues and bickers like a jealous spouse, you will come to see a Church whose response to heresies has always been measured, even-handed, and centered on Truth.

Part One:
jimmyakin.org/2004/09/the_heretical_o.html

Part Two:
jimmyakin.org/2004/09/some_thoughts_o.html

Part Three:
jimmyakin.org/2004/10/sdg_here_with_p.html

Notice his critique of what he calls “the Goldilocks approach.”