Where to begin?

[Randy_Carson]

You’re forgetting that James made his statement DURING the council in Jerusalem. The Judaizers would not have needed to check things out with James because they would have just heard Peter speak for themselves.

Yes, they did. James addressed them to soothe their emotions. After all, they had just been told that they lost the battle over circumcision. You want to make it out like they all said, “Oh, well, now that Peter has spoken, we have no problem whatsoever with letting the Gentiles remain uncircumcised.” That’s not human nature, is it? James, the bishop of Jerusalem, let it be known that he was personally behind Peter’s decision, and that made a bitter pill easier to swallow.

I will agree with you here: The RCC is certainly the modern day equivalent of the Pharisees. And to that end the RCC should heed Christ’s words because they nullify the word of God for the sake of their tradition.

Wow. A cheap shot. Completely beneath you…or so I would have imagined previously. You just took a step down in my opinion.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Are they? They haven’t been excommunicated and they continue to partake of the eucharist, so I am not convinced.

And if we threw them all out, would you not accuse us of inquisition?

Damned if we do…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not true. The Christian Bible began with Moses. And the New Testament portion of the Christian Bible was completed and widely recognized long before 200 A.D. (even if it wasn’t formally ratified until 393 A.D.). In fact, Peter was already acknowledging Paul’s letters as Scripture in his second epistle (2 Peter 3:16).

Are you saying that each and every local church had the exact same set of inspired books in its possession before 200 AD?

Hmmm…Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians was read in some churches as inspired scripture for a long time…when was it finally determined to be inspirational but not inspired?

 

[Randy_Carson]

You deny the perspicuity of Scripture?

Does the Bible teach that infants should be baptized? Yes or no.

After you answer, I will list the Protestant denominations that take the opposite position based upon their reading of scripture.

So much for perspicuity.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Challenge for you Tomster (or any other partakers): Name just one book that was a serious contender for the canon, but was rejected.

Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Dr. Erwin Lutzer in his book Seven Reasons Why You Can Trust The Bible says it more eloquently than I can:

"[C]onsider the context of Paul’s words in 2 Thessalonians 2:25…Paul had taught the believers in Thessalonica many things by word of mouth, and these doctrines were to be followed. But the essential content of these teachings is what is recorded in the Scripture. And if there were other matters Paul taught them which are not in the sacred Scriptures, we can only assume that he did not think that they were necessary to be preserved for the whole church. Paul would never have entrusted the truth he wanted the whole church to know to oral tradition. Whatever was of basic importance was written down.

Gee, this doesn’t make any sense. Paul was writing to the Thessalonians…not to the “whole church”…he had no idea that he was writing “scripture”…in fact, in some place he specifically says about a teaching “I, not the Lord”, so he thought he was giving personal opinion there.

So, if Paul thought he was writing to the Thessalonians, it might not have occurred to him to write down all over again everything that he may have already taught them.

 

[fbl9]

I will agree with you here: The RCC is certainly the modern day equivalent of the Pharisees. And to that end the RCC should heed Christ’s words because they nullify the word of God for the sake of their tradition.

name a “tradition” that nullifies the word of God

 

[Prieldedi]

I will agree with you here: The RCC is certainly the modern day equivalent of the Pharisees. And to that end the RCC should heed Christ’s words because they nullify the word of God for the sake of their tradition.

I’d like to point out a passage omitted when Tradition is discussed:

“Heaven and earth will pass away, BUT MY WORDS WILL NOT PASS AWAY”. (Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33)

From His own words we can tell without a doubt that Jesus unrecorded words are ALIVE today… “MY WORDS WILL NOT PASS AWAY”. Also, by the Gospel of John we know that not everything Jesus told and taught the Apostles was recorded in writing in the New Testament (John 20:30 and John 21:25). We know Jesus left no written word to the Apostles, we know all His words were spoken. He wrote something on the ground with his finger, but we don’t know what, when he said: “Let anyone among you who has no sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8:7)

With this in mind I ask you, where can we find the unrecorded words of Jesus TODAY? Where are they NOW? I know no protestant can tell me where to find them, for they have no clue. However, we Catholics know the answer:

We can find the unrecorded words of Jesus in the Tradition of the Church. That’s why Tradition is also The Word of God: they are the unrecorded words of Jesus. When you reject Tradition, you reject the Word of God. So my advise is don’t throw away the Tradition of the Church so fast. In doing so you are actually throwing away God’s Word, not men’s words.

(I posted this before here)

 

[pablope]

The promise of a Messiah first appears in Genesis 3:15. This is called the protoevangelium. What we call christianity was God’s plan all along. It wasn’t plan B. Therefore, the Old Testament is also part of the Christian Bible.

 

[pablope]

Dr. Erwin Lutzer in his book Seven Reasons Why You Can Trust The Bible says it more eloquently than I can:

"[C]onsider the context of Paul’s words in 2 Thessalonians 2:25…Paul had taught the believers in Thessalonica many things by word of mouth, and these doctrines were to be followed. But the essential content of these teachings is what is recorded in the Scripture. And if there were other matters Paul taught them which are not in the sacred Scriptures, we can only assume that he did not think that they were necessary to be preserved for the whole church. Paul would never have entrusted the truth he wanted the whole church to know to oral tradition. Whatever was of basic importance was written down.

The Thessalonians had evidently been misled by a forged letter, supposedly by an apostle, telling them that the day of the Lord had already come (2 Thessalonians 2:2). Paul wanted to warn them to accept only letters written in his own handwriting (3:7) and so stand fast in his teaching."

I am not familiar with this book. But from what I am read from your quote…it is trying to make for a weak case with these assertions.

The author it seems did not take into account why Paul wrote his epistles, and the reason why paul wrote his second letter to the thessalonians.

 

[Tomster]

Sorry, but where is tradition in that? People the world over learn to communicate in writing and no tradition is required, plain and simple.

If the Bible says not to covet I do not spend a lot of time worrying that my exegesis is correct, I just assume it means that we should not covet. It’s not complicated really.

It has to do with the interpretation of Sacred Scripture. How do you know that your pastor is giving the correct interpretation? Surely you would not admit that your pastor is infallible would you?

What you fail to understand is that the Word of God is infallible and it takes an infallible teacher to interpret it infallibly. You have no such assurance.

 

[Tomster]

Challenge for you Tomster (or any other partakers): Name just one book that was a serious contender for the canon, but was rejected.

Or…the letters of the apostles and copies of those letters, which were recognized as Scripture, were circulated among the churches. Not only that, but they also had the Old Testament. Talk to a messianic Jew, and they will show you how the Gospel is proclaimed even in the Old Testament.

For starters, the Shephard of Hermes. There were many, many others that were in circulation before the Catholic Church fixed the Canon of the Bible once and for all.

 

[Tomster]

Sorry, but where is tradition in that? People the world over learn to communicate in writing and no tradition is required, plain and simple.

If the Bible says not to covet I do not spend a lot of time worrying that my exegesis is correct, I just assume it means that we should not covet. It’s not complicated really.

Are you aware that the Bible is oral Tradition in written form?

 

[Tomster]

I’d like to point out a passage omitted when Tradition is discussed:

“Heaven and earth will pass away, BUT MY WORDS WILL NOT PASS AWAY”. (Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33)

From His own words we can tell without a doubt that Jesus unrecorded words are ALIVE today… “MY WORDS WILL NOT PASS AWAY”. Also, by the Gospel of John we know that not everything Jesus told and taught the Apostles was recorded in writing in the New Testament (John 20:30 and John 21:25). We know Jesus left no written word to the Apostles, we know all His words were spoken. He wrote something on the ground with his finger, but we don’t know what, when he said: “Let anyone among you who has no sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8:7)

With this in mind I ask you, where can we find the unrecorded words of Jesus TODAY? Where are they NOW? I know no protestant can tell me where to find them, for they have no clue. However, we Catholics know the answer:

We can find the unrecorded words of Jesus in the Tradition of the Church. That’s why Tradition is also The Word of God: they are the unrecorded words of Jesus. When you reject Tradition, you reject the Word of God. So my advise is don’t throw away the Tradition of the Church so fast. In doing so you are actually throwing away God’s Word, not men’s words.

(I posted this before here)

Great post and thank you!

Now, if we take this one step further and really look at it closely, we see that Solus Christus hasn’t really thrown away the IDEA of tradition. He, perhaps unknowingly, has really accepted it. By that I mean he accepts the exegesis of those who have actually taught him, by word of mouth, from one or many of the pastors he has come in contact with. Oh, he accepts tradition alright. It’s just that it has never been explained to him in that way.

Let me provide a very telling quote to explain what I have been trying to say. The language is very strong but honest and truthful. The author of the quote is quite surprising.

“The principle sin of heretics is their pride. In their pride they insist on their own opinions. Frequently they serve God with great fervor and they do not intend any evil; but they serve God according to their own will . . . Even when refuted, they are ashamed to retract their errors and to change their words . . . They think they are guided directly by God . . . The things that have been established for centuries and for which so many martyrs have suffered death, they begin to treat as doubtful questions. They interpret [the Bible] according to their own heads and their own particular views and carry their own opinions into it.” - Martin Luther (while still a Catholic)

Very ironic to say the least.

Some questions I have posed to many non-Catholics who come to Catholic Answers, and never really received a satisfactory answer to, is why do you bother listening to the exegesis of Sacred Scriptures from your pastors? Don’t you know that they are just giving you a fallible interpretation of Scripture? Are you aware that your own TRADITION states that you are free to interpret Scriptures any way you desire? Why, then, do you bother with men who tell you what they think a particular Scripture passage means?

After all is said and done, all they can do is reply with silence.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Whatever the Jews did after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ with their books has no bearing on Christians. None whatsoever.

The Septuagint, also called LXX and put together between the 3rd and 2nd century before the birth of Jesus, included the 46 books of the Old Testament and it is what Jesus and the Apostles refer to as “Scripture”. So, if anyone subtracted books it was not the Catholic Church. Martin Luther used the council at Jamnia as his excuse to reject the 7 books called the Deuterocanonicals from the Word of God, the Bible. There you have another one that subtracted books.

I agree that whatever the Jewish leaders did after the death of Christ is inconsequential for Christians. But I reject your conclusion for the following reason: The Jewish Bible (Tanakh) at the time of Christ was identical in content to the “Protestant” Old Testament. One difference was the order of those books. Instead of the last book being Malachi, it was Chronicles. Jesus often quoted those Scriptures as authoritative and never declared that anything should be added or removed from the body of writings. In fact, in Matthew 23:34-35 Christ gives an insight into the extent of Scripture during His time when He makes mention of the first murder in the canon (Abel) and last murder in the canon(Zechariah).

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Jewish Bible (Tanakh) at the time of Christ was identical in content to the “Protestant” Old Testament.

"5 Myths about 7 Books"
By Mark Shea
envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

…the Old Testament was still very much in flux in the time of Christ and there was no fixed canon of Scripture in the apostolic period. Some people will tell you that there must have been since, they say, Jesus held people accountable to obey the Scriptures. But this is also untrue. For in fact, Jesus held people accountable to obey their conscience and therefore, to obey Scripture insofar as they were able to grasp what constituted “Scripture.”

Consider the Sadducees. They only regarded the first five books of the Old Testament as inspired and canonical. The rest of the Old Testament was regarded by them in much the same way the deuterocanon is regarded by Protestant Christians today: nice, but not the inspired Word of God. This was precisely why the Sadducees argued with Jesus against the reality of the resurrection in Matthew 22:23-33: they couldn’t see it in the five books of Moses and they did not regard the later books of Scripture which spoke of it explicitly (such as Isaiah and 2 Maccabees) to be inspired and canonical. Does Jesus say to them “You do greatly err, not knowing Isaiah and 2 Maccabees”? Does He bind them to acknowledge these books as canonical? No. He doesn’t try to drag the Sadducees kicking and screaming into an expanded Old Testament. He simply holds the Sadducees accountable to take seriously the portion of Scripture they do acknowledge: that is, He argues for the resurrection based on the five books of the Law. But of course, this doesn’t mean Jesus commits Himself to the Sadducees’ whittled-down canon.

When addressing the Pharisees, another Jewish faction of the time, Jesus does the same thing. These Jews seem to have held to a canon resembling the modern Jewish canon, one far larger than that of the Sadducees but not as large as other Jewish collections of Scripture. That’s why Christ and the Apostles didn’t hesitate to argue with them from the books they acknowledged as Scripture. But as with the Sadducees, this doesn’t imply that Christ or the Apostles limited the canon of Scripture only to what the Pharisees acknowledged.

When the Lord and His Apostles addressed Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews, they made use of an even bigger collection of Scripture - the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek - which many Jews (the vast majority, in fact) regarded as inspired Scripture. In fact, we find that the New Testament is filled with references to the Septuagint (and its particular translation of various Old Testament passages) as Scripture. It’s a strange irony that one of the favorite passages used in anti-Catholic polemics over the years is Mark 7:6-8. In this passage Christ condemns “teaching as doctrines human traditions.” This verse has formed the basis for countless complaints against the Catholic Church for supposedly “adding” to Scripture man-made traditions, such as the “merely human works” of the deuterocanononical books. But few realize that in Mark 7:6-8 the Lord was quoting the version of Isaiah that is found only in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.

But there’s the rub: The Septuagint version of Scripture, from which Christ quoted, includes the Deuterocanonical books, books that were supposedly “added” by Rome in the 16th century. And this is by no means the only citation of the Septuagint in the New Testament. In fact, fully two thirds of the Old Testament passages that are quoted in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So why aren’t the deuterocanonical books in today’s Jewish Bible, anyway? Because the Jews who formulated the modern Jewish canon were a) not interested in apostolic teaching and, b) driven by a very different set of concerns from those motivating the apostolic community.

In fact, it wasn’t until the very end of the apostolic age that the Jews, seeking a new focal point for their religious practice in the wake of the destruction of the Temple, zeroed in with white hot intensity on Scripture and fixed their canon at the rabbinical gathering, known as the “Council of Javneh” (sometimes called “Jamnia”), about A.D. 90. Prior to this point in time there had never been any formal effort among the Jews to “define the canon” of Scripture. In fact, Scripture nowhere indicates that the Jews even had a conscious idea that the canon should be closed at some point.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

The canon arrived at by the rabbis at Javneh was essentially the mid-sized canon of the Palestinian Pharisees, not the shorter one used by the Sadducees, who had been practically annihilated during the Jewish war with Rome. Nor was this new canon consistent with the Greek Septuagint version, which the rabbis regarded rather xenophobically as “too Gentile-tainted.” Remember, these Palestinian rabbis were not in much of a mood for multiculturalism after the catastrophe they had suffered at the hands of Rome. Their people had been slaughtered by foreign invaders, the Temple defiled and destroyed, and the Jewish religion in Palestine was in shambles. So for these rabbis, the Greek Septuagint went by the board and the mid-sized Pharisaic canon was adopted. Eventually this version was adopted by the vast majority of Jews - though not all. Even today Ethiopian Jews still use the Septuagint version, not the shorter Palestinian canon settled upon by the rabbis at Javneh. In other words, the Old Testament canon recognized by Ethiopian Jews is identical to the Catholic Old Testament, including the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

But remember that by the time the Jewish council of Javneh rolled around, the Catholic Church had been in existence and using the Septuagint Scriptures in its teaching, preaching, and worship for nearly 60 years, just as the Apostles themselves had done. So the Church hardly felt the obligation to conform to the wishes of the rabbis in excluding the deuterocanonical books any more than they felt obliged to follow the rabbis in rejecting the New Testament writings. The fact is that after the birth of the Church on the day of Pentecost, the rabbis no longer had authority from God to settle such issues. That authority, including the authority to define the canon of Scripture, had been given to Christ’s Church.

Thus, Church and synagogue went their separate ways, not in the Middle Ages or the 16th century, but in the 1st century. The Septuagint, complete with the deuterocanononical books, was first embraced, not by the Council of Trent, but by Jesus of Nazareth and his Apostles.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Solus-

I think your request for what would amount to the Sacramentary of the Early Church is a bit unreasonable. Of course, you get mileage out of demanding it (since you know we have nothing to offer)…I do get that.

However, I ask you to consider that the majority of the NT was written many decades after the events of the gospels took place, and it was written by an for people who LIVED their faith on a daily basis.

There was no need for Paul or Peter or James to write out the specific prayers to be said at a baptism since everyone knew what the prayers were from their own experience of attending and witnessing the baptisms.

The reason why I make the challenge is because the RCC claims that things like this (prayers for specific events, confession to priests, etc. - a.k.a. Tradition) were passed down by the apostles. For people like myself with a healthy dose of skepticism, I cannot step into a time machine to validate those claims. Neither can any Catholic living today. We must all accept these claims on faith. Now, at a deeper level, I am suspicious of these claims because they lead to suspect theology. I know we can all spend countless hours debating theology, however, so please do not ask where we disagree on theology because it will make the conversation just that much more unfocused.

The Protoevangelium of James is the earliest work I know of that describes baptism procedures, but there is nothing comparable to this for the sacrament of reconciliation…or marriage, either, for that matter - yet you have no problem with acknowledging marriage as a sacrament.

Of course I have no problem with marriage as a sacrament. In Gensis God made Adam and Eve and established marriage. It is clearly spelled out in the Bible. Confession to a priest is not spelled out, and hence my stern doubts.

If the early Church believed that Jesus was present in the Eucharist for a number of decades, and this belief was wrong, then why didn’t the Holy Spirit prompt Paul to correct this idolatrous error when he passed on to the Church at Corinth what the Lord had shown him?

The treatment of this subject in Corinthians is one of the big reasons why I question transubstantiation. The problem in the Corinthian church is that they did not partake together. The wealthy brought food from their plenty while the poor went hungry. This paints a picture far removed from what happens during mass. Aparently no priest blessed the elements, and the elements themselves were a regular meal (what the early Christians called “love feasts”). Now I can already hear the objection from Catholics: Why don’t you Protestants, then, have love feasts now? The answer is in Paul’s admonition. He says everyone should eat at home, and the remembrance of the Last Supper performed as a community.

So, how would having the rite of confession from an Apostolic Father make you any more accepting of something you are clearly pre-disposed to reject?

In honesty it would not, but I make the challenge because I am trying to make a point. If you agree with me that we must accept the claims of the RCC based on faith in the RCC, however, then we are in agreement and I have no need to belabor the point.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The reason why I make the challenge is because the RCC claims that things like this (prayers for specific events, confession to priests, etc. - a.k.a. Tradition) were passed down by the apostles. For people like myself with a healthy dose of skepticism, I cannot step into a time machine to validate those claims. Neither can any Catholic living today. We must all accept these claims on faith. Now, at a deeper level, I am suspicious of these claims because they lead to suspect theology. I know we can all spend countless hours debating theology, however, so please do not ask where we disagree on theology because it will make the conversation just that much more unfocused.

You begin with the presupposition that Catholic theology is suspect, and then you find it difficult to accept anything the Catholic Church has to say. Wonderful.

Let’s take a different approach…how old do YOU think the Church’s teaching on the Sacrament of Reconciliation is? By what century was it developed to the point that we might recognize it today?

Of course I have no problem with marriage as a sacrament. In Gensis God made Adam and Eve and established marriage. It is clearly spelled out in the Bible. Confession to a priest is not spelled out, and hence my stern doubts.

Sure. But I find the Eucharist spelled out clearly enough in the Bible. John 6 couldn’t be any clearer in its language, yet many reject Jesus’ Real Presence. So, what could is a verse or two if people simply try to explain them away no matter what?

The treatment of this subject in Corinthians is one of the big reasons why I question transubstantiation. The problem in the Corinthian church is that they did not partake together. The wealthy brought food from their plenty while the poor went hungry. This paints a picture far removed from what happens during mass. Aparently no priest blessed the elements, and the elements themselves were a regular meal (what the early Christians called “love feasts”). Now I can already hear the objection from Catholics: Why don’t you Protestants, then, have love feasts now? The answer is in Paul’s admonition. He says everyone should eat at home, and the remembrance of the Last Supper performed as a community.

The meal referred to in Corinthians was distinct from the consecration of the bread and wine.

In honesty it would not, but I make the challenge because I am trying to make a point. If you agree with me that we must accept the claims of the RCC based on faith in the RCC, however, then we are in agreement and I have no need to belabor the point.

Looking at the scriptures from a purely historical perspective, I see that Jesus Christ is God. As God, He promised to build a single, visible, infallible Church led by His own royal steward, Peter. That same Church has been in continuous existence for 2,000 years, and I am a Catholic because no other Church can make these claims.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Additionally, I have not claimed that the understanding of Papal infallibility was full-blown within Peter’s lifetime, have I? He was infallible, but what of that was understood in the first century is unclear. Moreover, the pope is not infallible in EVERYTHING he says, so there is plenty of room to disagree.

Now why ever not? If Christ’s words in Matthew 16 were clearly understood by the disciples (especially since He spoke in Aramaic where it would have been less confusing) then the understanding should have been pretty good. This is even more true since during Peter’s lifetime the apostles themselves could atest to Peter’s charisma and teach this oral tradition for future generations. If, on the other hand, you concede that it was not readily apparent to the apostles, then here today, 2,000 years later we should certainly be asking some serious questions about how this belief in fact came about.

Gee, how have I failed to respond? The answer is “no”, and several ECF’s as well as Martin Luther himself distinguish between Peter and the other Apostles. I know I’ve posted this…was it in other threads besides this one???

Thank you for your answer. I apologize if I missed it earlier. Now I would like to understand what you find at fault in my argument as stated. The fact that Jesus only explicitly gave the keys to Peter in Matthew 16 and did not mention keys in Matthew 18 is understood, but that does not really expose the flaw in my logic.

This is a stretch. You cannot possibly believe that word went out to Corinth and Ephesus and Phillip, etc,:

FLASH: Gentiles unclean. Pope Peter refuses to eat with uncircumcised.
Get serious…“the Church” throughout the entire known world was NOT led into error by Peter’s personal decision to avoid conflict with the group that came from Jerusalem.

So is this another qualifier? The pope can only be infallible if greater than x% of the Church hears his pronouncement?