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

[itsjustdave1988]

So the catechism is not “all of it” but it contains “all of it”?

Ummmmm… no. If you read what I wrote, that’s what I meant.

It seems you’ve proven my point that written communication can be easily misunderstood. The Catechism is a summary of teaching.

Let me give you an example, I studied quantum physics in my bachelor’s studies. But ya know, I didnt’ just buy a book on quantum physics and read it. That would have made me a poor physicist indeed. That would likely have led to wildly variant and erroneous understandings of what the author of the book meant to convey. Quantum physics is pretty complex (like theology), and can easily be misunderstood. So, it seems wise to have oral teachings from a doctor of physics accompany the book in order that I might better learn physics. In fact, even after I learn from the doctor and the book, I am not really a physicists, as it takes some practice and continued study in the actual field of physics, applying what I’ve learned before I really seem to know the significance of what it was I studied in a class. It takes practice (just like Christianity) and constant consultation with doctors more learned than I before such study becomes more concrete in my life.

So, which doctor should I trust? What if the doctor I take the class from is like Marcion, denying what other doctors have taught before him, distorting the true sense of what I ought to know about the subject matter? Some professing to be doctors may even omit some important chapters from the text book he gives you (eeek!).

So it seems it matters which doctors you learn from. What was Luther’s credentials to teach? He was just a Catholic monk, no? He had superior to which Scripture said he ought to have obeyed (Heb 13:17). Yet Luther discarded Hebrews, so perhaps Heb 13:17 meant nothing to him.

What about Calvin? Did he, like the apostolical men of the early church have real and full ordination, the laying of hands, tracable from the source of our faith, Jesus Christ? What about Arius? He was ordained, so could he be trusted without reservation? Or should one verify that they are teaching in accord with the doctors, the apostolical men that came before them, in unity with entire community of these ordained men? Or, are they going off on a tangent, denying long held teachings in favor of something rather novel which was nowhere taught by the doctors, the apostolical men that came before them? Is the epistle of James an epistle of straw? How about the Theodotian recension of the Book of Daniel. Jerome accepted it. So did Origen. Why is this self-proclaimed doctor omitting chapters of the accepted text when the doctors of the early church, those closest to fountain of truth considered these chapters wholly orthodox?

 

[michaelp]

Written communicaton can be easily misunderstood. The various and contradicting interpretations of Scripture proves this. A letter can be misunderstood. With oral communication, two-way communication occurs which drastically helps to reduce misunderstanding. The Bible cannot say, “Wait! You have misunderstood me.” The Church can.

According to St. John, writing down everything Jesus said and did was impractical. Their mission certainly called for another approach. We’ll stick to that approach, and allow the voice of God to come from those ordained by God to care for our souls, to whom we owe our obedience (cf. Heb 13:17).

Just because something isn’t written down doesn’t mean that it isn’t authoritative. Is the details of the Passover Seder meal in the OT? How 'bout Hannukah? (ooops … that’s at least mentioned in the OT … 2 Maccabees)

Dave, this is just a fancy way of saying that you don’t have any evidence that “all of it” was given, right?

Michael

 

[itsjustdave1988]

michaelp:

Dave, this is just a fancy way of saying that you don’t have any evidence that “all of it” was given, right?

And this is your way of saying you don’t know where the prophesy of the Nazarene was written before Matthew refers to it. Yet, Scripture itself proves that prophesy can be accepted as authoritative even though it is merely spoken.

 

[michaelp]

itsjustdave1988:

Ummmmm… no. If you read what I wrote, that’s what I meant.

It seems you’ve proven my point that written communication can be easily misunderstood. The Catechism is a summary of teaching.

Let me give you an example, I studied quantum physics in my bachelor’s studies. But ya know, I didnt’ just buy a book on quantum physics and read it. That would have made me a poor physicist indeed. That would likely have led to wildly variant and erroneous understandings of what the author of the book meant to convey. Quantum physics is pretty complex (like theology), and can easily be misunderstood. So, it seems wise to have oral teachings from a doctor of physics accompany the book in order that I might better learn physics. In fact, even after learned from the doctor and the book, I am not really a physicists, as it takes some practice in the actual field of physics, applying what I’ve learned before I really seem to know the significance of what it was I studied in a class. It takes practice (just like Christianity) before such study becomes more concrete in my life.

So, which doctor should I trust? What if the doctor I take the class from is like Marcion, denying what other doctors have taught before him, distorting the true sense of what I ought to know? Some doctors may give you a textbook that is missing some booksSo the catechism is not “all of it” but it contains “all of it”?
Some professing to be doctors may even omit some important chapters from the text book he gives you (eeek!).

So it seems it matters which doctors teach you. What is Luther’s credentials to teach? What about Calvin? Did they, like the apostolical men of the early church have real ordination, the laying of hands, tracable from the source of our faith, Jesus Christ? What about Arius? He was ordained, so can he be trusted without reservation? Or should I verify that they are teaching in accord with the apostolical men that came before them, in unity with entire community of these ordained men? Or, are they going off on a tangent, denying long held teachings in favor of something rather novel which was nowhere taught by the apostolical men that came before them? Is the epistle of James an epistle of straw? Why is this self-proclaimed doctor omitting chapters of the text when the holiest of martyrs in the early church, those closest to fountain of truth considered these chapters wholly orthodox?

I get this. But this does not offer any proof that they had “all of it.” Illustrations of why they needed it are pragmatic and do not offer any proof to the statement that the early Church had “all of it.” In other words, you can say that things would work out better if they had inspired tratition and they necessarily must have had all of it since it was given by the Apostles. I agree that this would be the necessary conclusion if I believed in apostolic succession and the passing on of infallible tradition.

But here is the corner that you are in. The arguement is that the early church needed all of tradition for various reasons. One of these is the the NT was not accepted in its fullness until 4th century. I have argued and show that they did have 80% of it and believed it to be inspired. Now, I ask you to give me some conclusive evidence beyond pragmatics that the early Church had and believed “all” of tradition to be inspired.

I have given my evidence, I am just asking if you have any. If you don’t, fine. The pragmatic illustration above will serve as my guide and I thank you for it.

I really think that Vern was the one who put himself in a corner here, not you.

Thanks,

Michael

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

I get this. But this does not offer any proof that they had “all of it.” Illustrations of why they needed it are pragmatic and do not offer any proof to the statement that the early Church had “all of it.” In other words, you can say that things would work out better if they had inspired tratition and they necessarily must have had all of it since it was given by the Apostles. I agree that this would be the necessary conclusion if I believed in apostolic succession and the passing on of infallible tradition.

The tradition is found in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (those who were taught their Christianity by Apostles). Of course, the Apostolic Fathers did not write everything, so later generations also had oral traditions that extended beyond scripture. I’ve given examples, from the Didache to Eusebius, of writers who used oral tradition.

michaelp:

But here is the corner that you are in. The arguement is that the early church needed all of tradition for various reasons.

No. The argument is that Christianity is as it was. The Church and its tradition were complete, and nothing needed to be added.

michaelp:

One of these is the the NT was not accepted in its fullness until 4th century. I have argued and show that they did have 80% of it and believed it to be inspired. Now, I ask you to give me some conclusive evidence beyond pragmatics that the early Church had and believed “all” of tradition to be inspired.

The problem is, you have never addressed the question, “Who is ‘they?’”

When you say, “They did have 80%,” who are you talking about? You can list a few writers who cited some works that are now in the New Testament, but there were thousands and thousands more Christians – and you have no evidence that they had 80% or even a fraction of that.

On the other hand, I have cited many examples of early Christian writers who addressed heresies and controversies in the Church – from Peter and Paul forward.

Clearly, heresies and controversies WERE a major problem in the early Church. And that indicates that there was nowhere near the concord of opinion you paint.

What the historical evidence shows is a strong cenripedal tendency, one only overcome with great difficulty over several centuries. The struggle was the process that eventually led to the formation of the New Testament.

 

[michaelp]

Well, this has been a great thread. I do appreciate your contributions. We will just let the reader decide about these issues.

I have just recieved some books that many of you have recommended to me:

By What Authority? Mark Shea
Evangelicalism is not Enough by Howard
Catholic for a Reason by Hahn and Suprenant
Catholicism and Fundementalism by Keating

I will work through these and see if I can find these answers.

I hope that you all have learned as much as I.

Michael

 

[mercygate]

michaelp:

So the catechism is not “all of it” but it contains “all of it”?

The Catechism is only about 700 pages. Any one of the topics it covers could take 700 pages to exhaust. The Catechism is authoritative – it contains no false teaching – but not absolutely exhaustive.

 

[michaelp]

mercygate:

The Catechism is only about 700 pages. Any one of the topics it covers could take 700 pages to exhaust. The Catechism is authoritative – it contains no false teaching – but not absolutely exhaustive.

So the catechism is part of the infallible deposit of tradition? WOuld you say that the catechism is 80% at least? Did the early Church have access to this catechism or the teachings therein.

If so, and this is the key to our current arguement on this thread, how can you prove this?

Thanks,

Michael

 

[mercygate]

michaelp:

So the catechism is part of the infallible deposit of tradition? WOuld you say that the catechism is 80% at least? Did the early Church have access to this catechism or the teachings therein.

If so, and this is the key to our current arguement on this thread, how can you prove this?

Thanks,

Michael

Mm. Indeed. And the Catechism is set within a matrix of living authority, a living tradition, just as Scripture is. Not one or the other: both.

 

[vern_humphrey]

mercygate:

Mm. Indeed. And the Catechism is set within a matrix of living authority, a living tradition, just as Scripture is. Not one or the other: both.

Michael likes to play the fool, with questions like, “Did the early Church have access to this catechism or the teachings therein(?)”

I say “play the fool” because I will do him the courtesy of assuming he has read the Catechism before attacking it. And anyone who has read the Catechism sees that it is a compendium of the Church’s teachings – virtually bristling with footnotes, which tie the organized exposition of the Faith to the ancient tradition.

 

[michaelp]

mercygate:

Mm. Indeed. And the Catechism is set within a matrix of living authority, a living tradition, just as Scripture is. Not one or the other: both.

The catechism represents represents the tradition which has been around since the early Church. What I am asking is how can you prove that the ealy church had all that is in the current catechism? What evidence can you give other than saying that they had tradition in general?

Thanks,

Michael

 

[michaelp]

vern humphrey:

Michael likes to play the fool, with questions like, “Did the early Church have access to this catechism or the teachings therein(?)”

I say “play the fool” because I will do him the courtesy of assuming he has read the Catechism before attacking it. And anyone who has read the Catechism sees that it is a compendium of the Church’s teachings – virtually bristling with footnotes, which tie the organized exposition of the Faith to the ancient tradition.

Gosh Vern, I did not attack the catechism anywhere. I have no reason to. I am just saying if you believe the teachings that are in the catechism today are part of the deposit of faith and that the early church had access to all of it, what is the evidence that the early Church did indeed have all of the same teachings as the catechism? In other words, I am asking for some type of evidence that the early Church had “all of it” with regards to tradition.

It is the same thing that you have done with me and Scripture.

Michael

 

[mercygate]

michaelp:

The catechism represents represents the tradition which has been around since the early Church. What I am asking is how can you prove that the ealy church had all that is in the current catechism? What evidence can you give other than saying that they had tradition in general?

Thanks,

Michael

How long have you been following these forums? By now you should be able to tell ME what the Catholic position is on the relationship between Scripture, Tradition and development of doctrine.

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

Gosh Vern, I did not attack the catechism anywhere. I have no reason to. I am just saying if you believe the teachings that are in the catechism today are part of the deposit of faith and that the early church had access to all of it, what is the evidence that the early Church did indeed have all of the same teachings as the catechism? In other words, I am asking for some type of evidence that the early Church had “all of it” with regards to tradition.

It is the same thing that you have done with me and Scripture.

Michael

Why don’t you read the Catechism? Track the footnotes.

 

[michaelp]

vern humphrey:

Why don’t you read the Catechism? Track the footnotes.

So, if I were to track all of the footnotes, and write down their references, this would be a complete list of all of early Tradition and this would prove that they had “all of it?”

You spoke about all of the other writings of the day that were being put forth as scripture and how this would make the entire church uncertian as to what was truly part of scripture until the 4th century. How about all the other comments that the Church fathers made that are not referenced in the Catechism footnotes? How was anyone to judge which ones were true and which ones were false? Do all the references that are footnoted say something like “this is the tradition that was handed down . . .” or something like this? If not, how did they know what was true tradition and what was not?

Or did the church not have access to TRUE tradition until the catechism was published?

Michael

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

So, if I were to track all of the footnotes, and write down their references, this would be a complete list of all of early Tradition and this would prove that they had “all of it?”

You seem to have bizzare concepts both of conditions in the ancient world, and of tradition.

There was no widespread, rapid means of communication in those days, nor did the printing press exist. I know you know that, but I think it needs to be brought up to make a point. People living in the ancient world would ALL be considered living in backwaters with little communication with the outside world by today’s standard.

Therefore it would be impossible to say that “they” had anything more than was brought to them, and that written documents infused the Church only slowly.

Similarly, what was brought to them (by the Apostles, and later by those taught by the Apostles) only slowly permeated the whole Church.

Over time, however, written documents appeared in most areas – some of them genuine inspired writings, some accounts of genuine Apostolic teachings, some genuine peripheral accounts (of the lives, missions, and so on of the Apostles and their followers) and some – to put it kindly – suspect.

michaelp:

You spoke about all of the other writings of the day that were being put forth as scripture and how this would make the entire church uncertian as to what was truly part of scripture until the 4th century. How about all the other comments that the Church fathers made that are not referenced in the Catechism footnotes?

What specifically do you have in mind?

michaelp:

How was anyone to judge which ones were true and which ones were false? Do all the references that are footnoted say something like “this is the tradition that was handed down . . .” or something like this? If not, how did they know what was true tradition and what was not?

Or did the church not have access to TRUE tradition until the catechism was published?

Michael

Michael, you love to play the fool. Read the Catechism – you will find footnotes that refer not only directly to ancient tradition, but to later discussions and analysis of that tradition. There is a long, unbroken history of tradition – from its source in the Apostles, through the Angelic Doctors, to the present day.

 

[Kurt_G]

michaelp:

Hebrews was not written by Paul and therefore it is not part of the corpus.

Michael

Guys, I’m not looking for a scrap here, I truly want an opinion…

Regarding michaelp’s quote, would it not be more accurate to say “The writer of Hebrews is unknown” than to say flat out “it was not written by Paul?”

Now, for my honest question…I really want to know, 'cause I don’t know, and I’m not leading anywhere 'cause I don’t know where it would lead! But:

If the early Church had no fair certainty as to WHO wrote Hebrews, and it still made the “short list” so to speak, then **
what criteria (criterion?) were used by the Church to claim Divine Authorship to some books, and exclude Divine Authorship from others? **

(If nobody wants to answer, I won’t get my feelings hurt. I’ll just remain ignorant of the answer another day or so, until some kind person on this thread finds time to offer an answer…please?)

God Bless Us All!

 

[mercygate]

Kurt G.:

Guys, I’m not looking for a scrap here, I truly want an opinion…

Regarding michaelp’s quote, would it not be more accurate to say “The writer of Hebrews is unknown” than to say flat out “it was not written by Paul?”

Now, for my honest question…I really want to know, 'cause I don’t know, and I’m not leading anywhere 'cause I don’t know where it would lead! But:

If the early Church had no fair certainty as to WHO wrote Hebrews, and it still made the "short list" so to speak, then
what criteria (criterion?) were used by the Church to claim Divine Authorship to some books, and exclude Divine Authorship from others**? **

(If nobody wants to answer, I won’t get my feelings hurt. I’ll just remain ignorant of the answer another day or so, until some kind person on this thread finds time to offer an answer…please?)

God Bless Us All!

Hebrews was attributed to Paul.

 

[michaelp]

You seem to have bizzare concepts both of conditions in the ancient world, and of tradition.

There was no widespread, rapid means of communication in those days, nor did the printing press exist. I know you know that, but I think it needs to be brought up to make a point. People living in the ancient world would ALL be considered living in backwaters with little communication with the outside world by today’s standard.

Therefore it would be impossible to say that “they” had anything more than was brought to them, and that written documents infused the Church only slowly.

But you are the one who said that the entire early Church had “all of it” with regards to tradition. You also implied that they believed all of it to be inspired. Just by looking at the footnotes of the catechism tell me that they are referencing only certian teaching of the early Church fathers and not others.

Did you mistakenly say that they had access to all of it? Or did they have all of it but they did not know at that time what was inspired tratition and what was not? In other words, what evidence is there to show that the Church for the first 300 knew what the deposit of tradition was and could distinguish it from the rest of tradition (that was not true).

Similarly, what was brought to them (by the Apostles, and later by those taught by the Apostles) only slowly permeated the whole Church.

What is the difference in this and Scripture? You said that they did not have Scripture for the first 300 years (at least), but they did have all of tradtion. Were you mistaken? No shame in that . . . I am all the time .

What specifically do you have in mind?

There are only references to certain teaching of the Church fathers, not others. For example:

1. Justin taught that Christ was ontologically subordinate to the Father–condemned later on.
2. Irenaues taught that there was a coming 1000 year millenium, not part of your tradition.
3. Augustine taught that the atonement was paid to Satan rather than the Father.

How does this evidence that the early Church had “all of it” with regards to the deposit of tradition. Did they just get part of it? Where did “all of it reside?”

Michael, you love to play the fool.

Believe me Vern, I don’t know these answers. They are confusing to me. I think that they are valid concerns. Not that they can’t be overcome, but I am curious about this since you said that the early Church did not have all of the NT, therefore it could not be trusted until tradition stepped in. I am now trying to find this tradition in complete form before the canonization of the NT, since this is your criteria you set up.

Is this a double statndard?

Read the Catechism – you will find footnotes that refer not only directly to ancient tradition, but to later discussions and analysis of that tradition. There is a long, unbroken history of tradition – from its source in the Apostles, through the Angelic Doctors, to the present day.

But it just picks some traditions and not others. How do you discern what is the True deposit of faith? If you say that the Catholic Church determines this, that is question begging because the church can only descern this is it already has the Tradition which is what we are trying to establish.

Michael

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Kurt G.,

Michael’s opinion notwithstanding, the tradition of the Catholic Church considers Hebrews to be authored by St. Paul. Perhaps that opinion is incorrect, but I don’t think I’ll burn in hell if I’m wrong.

This same Catholic tradition is the only way we know that the authors of the other books are who they are claimed to be, so I trust this tradition, unless the Church herself tells me that some new evidence suggests something much different.

In 1913, the Pontifical Bible Commission issued a declaration entitled “On the Author and the Manner and Circumstances of Composition of the Epistle to the Hebrews”. It declared that since the Church accepts it as Pauline in authorship, “we may not hesitate” in counting this book among the epistles of Paul.

And so, I don’t hesitate in believe it to be Pauline.