Where to begin?

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Are you saying that if Peter had said, “I think it will rain tomorrow”, that was an infallible statement? I really invite you to do some homework on how infallibility actually works.

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.

Forgive me, but remind me what your was point previously. I’ve lost the thread…

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

No, again, that is not how it works. It’s not the percentage that *hears, *but the pope must intend to define a doctrine in his capacity as shepherd and teacher of the whole Church. Peter clearly did not intend to teach a doctrine to the whole Church concerning the circumcision of Gentiles; however, you asserted that Peter had somehow formally taught error when he decided not to have breakfast with some uncircumcised guys, and I say, “No, that’s not how infallible teaching works.”

Again, you might do some reading to get up to speed on this.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Because we are not individually infallible, and He never promised otherwise. Duh.

To which a Protestant might reply, and neither is the Church. Duh.

I don’t say this to be rude, but it is the crux of the matter. The RCC says it is infallible and Protestants want proof. The RCC shows the Protestant passages in Scripture to support its claim and the Protestant scratches his head and asks how that passage supports the RCC’s claim. The RCC then proceeds to refer back to Tradition and use suspect reasoning. In our conversation here, I have been attempting to explain why that reasoning is suspect.

If you and your wife pray for a new car, it may not be God’s will for you to have one. However, if the Catholic Church teaches a doctrine about some aspect of faith or morals, billions of souls are depending about accurate information. In the former case, two sheep are exercising their own wills about how they will be tended and fed; in the latter case, the shepherd of the sheep is carrying out God’s will about how His sheep will be tended and fed. It’s God’s Church and He leads His people by means of that Church.

Question: Why can’t those billions of souls depend directly on God? Why do they have to depend on an intermediary that depends on God. Is this not the essence of faith? (Trust in God as opposed to trust in someone else’s (Pope’s) relationship with God).

One thing I always go back to, Randy, is Israel’s relationship with God. Israel wanted a visible human king instead of just relying on God. God said that by this request they had rejected Him (1 Samuel 8). Now in the new covenant, why wouldn’t our relationship with God be the way He wants it to be (i.e. direct)? Why would He go to all of the trouble of sending His Son to restore fellowship only to install a human intermediary? This would certainly be a change from his express will in the Old Testament. Hebrews 10 (quoting from the OT) says something about the closeness we should have with God (He put His laws upon our hearts and upon our mind He has written them).

I think scripture is very clear about infallibility.

It would be really clear if it were explicit. It would at least be somewhat clear if there were a truly good argument. We obviously disagree, but I would say the RCC argument is not very strong.

If Jesus left Peter in charge of the sheep and then allowed Peter to lead them astray, then Jesus would bear responsibility for some of them being lost because He did not prevent Peter’s mistake. In other words, the “buck” ultimately stops with the Good Shepherd. Consequently, He must make sure that His “stand-in” here on earth is doing his job flawlessly.

No, we are each responsible and accountable for our own actions. Yet leaders will be judged more harshly (James 3:1), which seems to indicate to me that they can be fallible. A Catholic might argue that this passage does not refer to the pope’s teaching, but again I would ask: Based on the RCC argument that Christ will not let His Church go astray, what is the maximum percentage of the Church that can go astray before Christ will intervene and prevent error? Is it acceptable if only a few thousand are led astray? A few hundred? A handful?

I’m puzzled. The Orthodox are considered to be a “true church”; however, their communion with Peter is clearly imperfect.

So…is there unity in this case? If not then this must mean there is division within the Church. If so, then clearly uniformity of doctrine is not really essential.

It’s not repulsive - it’s simply unbiblical. The scriptures clearly indicate that the Church IS a visible one. There are lots of verses that demonstrate this fact.

I read your argument, but I really don’t get how that necessitates a visible big “C” Church.

 

[Prieldedi]

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).

I mentioned in my post the reason why they are identical: “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.”

You say that you “agree that whatever the Jewish leaders did after the death of Christ is inconsequential for Christians”, so why do you accept that a Christian, Martin Luther, accepted a Jewish cannon established 65 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus instead of the Christian cannon?

If you want to see references to the Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament, you’ll find plenty here.

 

[Randy_Carson]

To which a Protestant might reply, and neither is the Church. Duh.

And that would be about as good as it gets for the Protestant. A one-liner without substance. You keep trying to force an “apples and oranges” comparison to work. I just doesn’t.

I don’t say this to be rude, but it is the crux of the matter. The RCC says it is infallible and Protestants want proof. The RCC shows the Protestant passages in Scripture to support its claim and the Protestant scratches his head and asks how that passage supports the RCC’s claim.

I don’t mean to be rude, but if the Protestant is scratching his head, it’s simply because he doesn’t get it or doesn’t want to get it. Friend, you continue to look at the world through Protestant-colored glasses, then of course the Catholic claims are going to look odd.

The RCC then proceeds to refer back to Tradition and use suspect reasoning. In our conversation here, I have been attempting to explain why that reasoning is suspect.

Now, you are being rude. My reasoning is anything but suspect.

Question: Why can’t those billions of souls depend directly on God? Why do they have to depend on an intermediary that depends on God. Is this not the essence of faith? (Trust in God as opposed to trust in someone else’s (Pope’s) relationship with God).

Again, duh. They ARE dependent on God. In response, God has provided us with the Church to shepherd us.

And, FWIW, your assertion that Catholics trust in the Pope’s relationship with God instead of their own is even more insulting.

One thing I always go back to, Randy, is Israel’s relationship with God. Israel wanted a visible human king instead of just relying on God. God said that by this request they had rejected Him (1 Samuel 8). Now in the new covenant, why wouldn’t our relationship with God be the way He wants it to be (i.e. direct)? Why would He go to all of the trouble of sending His Son to restore fellowship only to install a human intermediary? This would certainly be a change from his express will in the Old Testament. Hebrews 10 (quoting from the OT) says something about the closeness we should have with God (He put His laws upon our hearts and upon our mind He has written them).

Interesting but not applicable. Jesus specifically instructed Peter to tend and feed His flock. JESUS LEFT PETER IN CHARGE. The passage from Is. 22:22 connects directly to Mt. 16:18-19 as Peter is the royal steward of Jesus’ household here on earth.

It would be really clear if it were explicit. It would at least be somewhat clear if there were a truly good argument. We obviously disagree, but I would say the RCC argument is not very strong.

I might have said the very same thing when I was still a Protestant.

No, we are each responsible and accountable for our own actions. Yet leaders will be judged more harshly (James 3:1), which seems to indicate to me that they can be fallible. A Catholic might argue that this passage does not refer to the pope’s teaching, but again I would ask: Based on the RCC argument that Christ will not let His Church go astray, what is the maximum percentage of the Church that can go astray before Christ will intervene and prevent error? Is it acceptable if only a few thousand are led astray? A few hundred? A handful?

You’re using the wrong unit of measure. It’s not the number of people who are led astray that counts; it’s the number of doctrines which the Church formally teaches incorrectly that matters. That number is “zero”, and consequently, the flock has never been led astray by the Church’s formal teaching on matters of faith and morals. That is what infallibility means.

So…is there unity in this case? If not then this must mean there is division within the Church. If so, then clearly uniformity of doctrine is not really essential.

You are clearly ignorant of the fact that the Orthodox have the same seven sacraments as the Catholic Church as well as valid apostolic succession of their bishops and valid holy orders. Consequently, their uniformity with Catholic doctrine is quite good. This just doesn’t fit with your view of the world, does it?

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

I read your argument, but I really don’t get how that necessitates a visible big “C” Church.

Keep reading and praying.

Jesus founded a visible Church
Adapted from “The Necessity of Being Catholic”
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

The Church Jesus Christ founded is a visible communion. This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.

 

[jmcrae]

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

The Shepherd of Hermas, for one. The Didache was another.

There were also at least two other versions of the Gospel of Mark, which were considered forgeries and rejected. It was by means of the Holy Tradition that the Fathers of the Councils of Carthage and Hippo were able to discern which of the three versions of the Gospel of Mark was the authentic version, to include it in the New Testament.

Or…the letters of the apostles and copies of those letters, which were recognized as Scripture, were circulated among the churches.

There were hundreds of these letters. Only 22 of them ended up in the New Testament.

 

[jmcrae]

Question: Why can’t those billions of souls depend directly on God?

Because God has only one Bride - not hundreds. We are saved in the Bride of Christ (the Church) or not at all.

Based on the RCC argument that Christ will not let His Church go astray, what is the maximum percentage of the Church that can go astray before Christ will intervene and prevent error? Is it acceptable if only a few thousand are led astray? A few hundred? A handful?

During the Arian crisis, all except two people were led astray - St. Athanasius, and Pope Julius, who was Bishop of Rome at that time.

So…is there unity in this case? If not then this must mean there is division within the Church. If so, then clearly uniformity of doctrine is not really essential.

Division in the Church is never acceptable, but neither is an attitude of “majority rules” or “if we disagree, then the thing we disagree on must be a non-essential” - again, see the Arian crisis - only two of the millions of Christians on earth had the correct doctrine - and God prevailed in the Church by means of the faithfulness of these two men, and their unwillingness to “let it be” or to allow the Church to be split into factions.

We see no Arians around, today, because they understood what the Church is, and what it means, to be faithful.

 

[Tomster]

"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.)

:tiphat: (. . . “white hot intensity” . . . ) exactly!

 

[Tomster]

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.

:tiphat:

 

[Tomster]

You deny the perspicuity of Scripture? You believe that God condescended to man to give man His Word, but only in a manner that the greatest of men (bishops and popes) could understand it?

A preacher can read and discuss Scripture without injecting his own spin. It’s called exegesis. It is similar to when you read an owner’s manual. You do not require an infallible interpretation of the manual. You just read it and do what it says.

Solus Christus,

Quite simply exegesis the investigation and expounding of the true sense of the Sacred Scriptures, that is, the truth actually conveyed by them.

The word exegesis is derived from the Greek verb - to explain. Exegesis is the art of finding and proposing the true sense of a text, and, in the theological field, of a text of Sacred Scritpture. It is an art insomuch as it applies the rules and principles of both the rational and the theological orders, which the science of hermeneutics establishes.

The process of interpretation of a biblical text starts with the determination of the text itself through the principles of textual criticism. Through the means of the rules of hermeneutics the exact exegesis of the text is given, recourse being had, whenever necessary, to literary criticism to determine the literary style of the book in which the text under examination is contained, and to historical criticism to locate it in its time relations. The supreme purpose of exegesis is to illuminate through human words the fullness of the light and thought of God.

(cont.)

 

[Tomster]

Solus Christus,

Related to exegesis is catechesis, another word derived from the Greek “sound”, “noise”; therefore “I resound”, “echo”; make heard"; “teach”.

At the dawn of Christianity it meant the oral teaching of the evangelical doctrine. The term is found in St. Paul and St. Luke, especially as a verb (1 Corinthians 14:19; Acts 18:25).

It is customary to distinguish between apostolic catechesis - the preaching of the Gospel heralds, sober and plain exposition, but lively and replete with the teachings of Jesus Christ - and a catechesis of the Fathers of the Church, which is the first developement of the teaching as adapted to common intelligence of the neophytes, especially under the form of a homily. But in a stricter sense, catechesis is the careful instruction which, from the first centuries, accompanies and is a part of the catechumenate in its various steps. There was an introductory catechesis, which was given to the candidates before admission to the real catechumenate; we have an interesting example of this in St. Augustine’s “De catechizandis rudibus,” which treats not only about the subject matter but also the method of teaching religious truths.

After this initial preparation the aspirant was admitted to the catechumenate, at first as an audient, then as a competent; and the catechesis became progressively more extensive and more profound, up to the teaching of the great mysteries and the sacraments. In this connection, the most complete and precious document is the 24 catechesis of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in which are distinguished: an introduction (protocatechesis); 18 catecheses for those to be baptised ( to be illumined ), which treat of sin, penance, baptism, and faith, and develope the articles of the Creed in a popular style; and, finally, the 5 mystagogical or sacramental catecheses for the newly baptised ( neo-illumined ). The old catechesis gave birth to the Catechism, a compendium of Christian doctrine adapted to children and adults.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Sure. But that is not the point. The Catholic Church teaches a single set of beliefs. Individual Catholics may or may not go along with all of them.

You are saying there needs to be an infallible standard whether people conform to that standard or not. I agree with you. The Bible fulfills the need for this standard. If there are people who do not “go along with” the Bible, then how does the introduction of a secondary standard (Tradition) solve anything?

The Bible also teaches a single set of beliefs. The difference between Scripture and RCC Tradition, however, is that Scripture is thoroughly self-consistent whereas, arguably, the body of RCC Tradition is not.

I do not believe that Jesus intended for one group of His sheep to believe one thing about infant baptism while another group of His sheep believe the opposite.

All Christians believe that baptism is important. We disagree on mode (submersion or sprinkling) and significance. Our understanding of significance (i.e. whether it is needed for salvation) will affect whether we believe baptism should be performed on infants or only to confessing believers. In the end, however, if all Christians are baptized then our understanding or misunderstanding of these details seems unimportant. If it were of eternal importance that we understand these details, I strongly suspect Christ would have taught on this or, at the very least, one of the NT books would have provided a comprehensive treatment of the subject.

Noted. However, I think that Jesus and Paul were envisioning uniformity in matters of doctrine. The Church in Corinth would not have been pleased to learn that the Church in Ephesus had ordained women.

In certain areas, yes, uniformity is important. In what areas? There are areas that are non-negotiable. For instance, the Church should not tolerate marital infidelity, murder, incest, teachings that deny the divinity and humanity of Christ, so on and so forth. In other areas, there is room for liberty. What about, for example, holy days, days of fasting, etc.? That is precisely what Paul discusses in Romans 14. There, he calls for liberty on these non-essentials while still making a plea for Christian love and unity. Therefore, it is valid and acceptable for two Christians to diverge on non-essential doctrinal matters while still maintaining unity in love. I do not agree that complete uniformity was ever in-view.

 

[Solus_Christus]

You seem to believe that we believe EVERYTHING the Pope says is infallible. Please tell me I’m wrong…

No, I understand the construct of ex cathedra. My confusion always comes with the arguments used to commend this dogma because they do not fit within the ex cathedra construct. The arguments are always as you have presented them (i.e. to keep the Church from teaching error). Depending on what Catholic you ask, however, the body of teaching that falls withing the construct (i.e. meets the criteria) of ex cathedra is either very small or very large. If it is very large then there are all sorts of conflicts that need to be explained. If it is very small, then it nullifies the argument since the RCC does a lot of teaching (so what good is it if only a small percentage of that teaching is error-free).

In the context of my original response to jmcrae, however, I was responding to his/her assertion that the Judaizers were merely checking with James to verify something Peter had said that was “hard to hear.” If the Judaizers were checking with James to determine whether Peter’s pronouncement was binding then they would, in essence, be questioning whether Peter was infallible. And hence my incredulity since such a charism would have been well understood by the early believers. If it were not well understood, jmcrae’s assertion would be even further frusterated since the Judaizers would not have even bothered conferring with James on the matter. After all they would not, under these circumstances, have believed him to possess the charism either.

Jesus was speaking about the religious leaders of the day, and He acknowledges that those leaders had legitimate authority. This is completely applicable to the rightful religious leaders of the Church today.

If it is applicable, then why do you accept the application while rejecting the implication concerning tradition? No need to answer, I anticipate the response (namely, that the traditions of the RCC are infallible).

I understand that as a Catholic you accept that response uncritically. In my estimation, however, Christians ought to give wide berth to anything spoken against in such strong terms by God. If I were a Catholic, I would not be content to trust in the assurances of men that they have been kept from error by the Holy Spirit based on their unique interpretation of Scripture. I would, at the least, think it worthwhile to consider, in as objective a manner as possible, whether any portion of the body of RCC tradition did in fact tend to nullify the Word of God. What if the eternity of your soul hung in the balance? I personally would find that thought highly motivating.

 

[Solus_Christus]

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.

Sorry, but I find this explanation dubious. Since Peter’s supposed infallibility was by way of the Holy Spirit, then any refusal or hesitancy to concede on the part of the Judaizers would have be a direct affront to the Holy Spirit. Would it be appropriate for James to respond to such effrontery with cajoling? I suppose it is possible, but the proposition seems contrived.

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

Yes, I suppose that was a bit harsh. So why do you suppose Christ used those words in the first place? I personally suspect He took a very serious view of anything that obscured God’s Word.

Let us be candid with each other, Randy. As a good Catholic, you will consider me to be a heretic and schismatic. As someone who believes God’s Word is being obscured by the RCC, I believe this warning by Christ is directly applicable to the RCC. Now, I would hope that our motivations here in this forum have less to do with winning a fight and more to do with a concern, borne of Christian charity, for the spiritual well-being of others. I suspect it is a little bit of both all around. Assuming our aspirations are noble, however, then as a Catholic you would seek to restore a brother (or, if I weren’t even a separated brother then why bother to converse with me) and for my part I would seek to make it evident to you that the Traditions you love are actually detrimental to you. Coming from that perspective, then, I am not really sure the words are harsh at all. They are only harsh if the motives are wrong, in which case God is our final judge.

 

[Solus_Christus]

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

Damned if we do…

So let me get this straight: If a confessing Catholic supports the right to murder through the cause of abortion, though they are in direct violation of God’s Word (Thou shalt not kill) they will not be excommunicated. On the other hand, if a confessing Catholic believes that he is saved by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone, to the glory of God alone, then he is excommunicated. It would seem we have entered the theater of the absurd.

 

[Solus_Christus]

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

I am saying that at first the letters were circulated among the churches, and then careful copies were made so local churches could retain a copy. All along, however, most of those texts worthy of being considered Scripture were widely recognized. Yes, there were some, such as Hebrews and Revelations, about which reasonable questions were raised. Certainly, copies of inspiritational writings were probably widely distributed as well, but they were not widely considered to be Scripture.

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?

In Clement’s letter he instructs his readers to look to Scripture (to wit: “Ye are fond of contention, brethren, and full of zeal about things which do not pertain to salvation. Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them.”), but he never attributes divine inspiration to his own letter. Compare this to Paul’s letters, where he opens almost every letter with: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

 

[Solus_Christus]

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.

I hear you on Paul’s “I, not the Lord” statement, but I think it proves just the opposite: In general, Paul did know that he was writing Scripture. The one place where he makes this interjection actually shows that he felt it necessary to differentiate what he thought was a personal opinion from the rest of the letter, which he thought to be inspired by God.

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.

I think that Paul would have wanted to reinforce those things he had taught them that were of first importance (1 Corinthians 2:2 and 5:3) rather than leaving them to oral tradition where they could be altered or forgotten.

 

[Solus_Christus]

name a “tradition” that nullifies the word of God

I hesitate to answer this question because I can envision the passion and displeasure this will arouse, but I would point to the “Cult of Mary” for one. I know I have heard the arguments many times that Catholics do not worship Mary, but when I read books such a St. Alphonsus de Liguori’s book “The Glories of Mary” and look at the language used by Legion of Mary publications, I cannot help but cringe. Whenever something that is the sole domain of Christ is applied to another, I immediately recognize it as idolatry.

Please withhold the hate mail on this one. I know this is an area where we will have to agree to disagree. But as I have said before, as a Christian I would give wide berth to anything expressely forbidden by God, and would not dare to rely on technicalities, such as the claim that devotion to Mary is a hyperdulia form of worship and not a latria form of worship. For this reason alone, I will never become a Catholic. If God says He burns in anger toward those who practice idolatry, I am going to run as fast and as far away as I can from anything that even hints of idolatry.

 

[Solus_Christus]

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:

My answer to the question is that God preserved His Word in His Word, the Bible. If there are words spoken by Christ not preserved in the Bible (such as “please pass me the bottle of wine”) then it was not necessary for us, as His followers, to know them. And, since you bring it up, please do tell me: What did Jesus write in the dust? Since apparently it is important that we know, I am assuming Catholic Tradition has preserved it. So please, do tell.

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)

If this is true, then the keeping of these words is a most solemn and sacred duty. So it should be a simple matter for Catholics (or some Catholic somewhere deep in the bowels of the Vatican) to produce (recite?) volumes of words of Christ not recorded in the Bible. Can you please either point me to them or else recite them for me? Surely at least some of them have been written down during the last 2,000 years. It would surely be a best-selling title: “The Unrecorded Words of Christ.” The faithful would be clamouring for a chance to read these.

 

[Solus_Christus]

sorry you got me confused here. The OT as you know it today, spoke of a messiah.

I am not sure when the OT name came about. So maybe you research it and have a history lesson.

Just so we’re on the same page here, the protoevangelium is recognized and agreed upon by both Catholics and Protestants.

I think you need to do more research about Jamnia and find out why the Jews adopted the rules for their canon and their reason for doing so.

As has been rightfully pointed out elsewhere, what the Jews did in Jamnia have no bearing on what Christians believe. I only point it out because it shows remarkable consistency over centuries extending back before the Church Age on what was recognized as Scripture. If the Jews were able to do this without the aid of an indefectible Sacred Magisterium, than so also could the early Church. This is possible because it was Providence that preserved the Scriptures and not some infallible council.

The Bible OT had all 46 books up to 1500 or so. Your forebear Luther also had 46 books in his original Bible. He adopted the Jewish canon.

Yes, starting with the Septuagint, which was the Greek translation of Jewish Scripture plus other inspirational texts, these apocryphal writings were included in with the OT Scriptures. The Jews did not consider these inspirational texts to be part of the canon and, as I pointed out earlier, neither did Christ.

Question: Since the Jews rejected Jesus and adopted a separate Canon used by the early Christians, why do protestants adopt the same OT of the Jews who rejected Christ in the first place? Are you not then being in concert with the Jews for their rejection of Christ?

What is of utmost importance in my considerations is what Christ believed to be the canon, and I have already shown that he identified the Tanakh as being the bounds of Scripture.

There was also the Letter of Hermas, Letter of Barnabas, the Didache, gospel of Peter, of Jude (I recall) and I think a gospel of Mary that did not make it to the NT.

So who discerned that these not be in the NT? Catholics or protestants?

With the exception of the Letter of Hermas, none of the writings you mentioned were given serious consideration. Since your question is predicated upon an anachronism, the answer is “neither nor.”

Is Peter making a pronouncement that the Letters of Paul are Scripture as you know them today?

Instead, Peter is giving a warning not to misunderstand them, lest they be twisted and interpreted wrongly…as others have done with other scriptures or writings, to prevent the reader from being misled.

I think it would do yo well if you follow Peter’s advice.

I think you are trying to force an interpretation that is not there to justify to yourself your own understanding.

Heh, speaking of forcing an interpretation that is not there, you just used one of the most well-worn and fallacious Catholic arguments.

Let us look at the passage in context together: Starting in verse 16, Peter explains to his readers why his testimony, and that of his fellow apostles, is trustworthy and not simply some cleverly devised myths. He first points out that they were eyewitnesses. In verses 17 and 18 he conveys how he, James, and John saw Christ transfigured. Then, in verse 19, Peter announces that he has something even more certain than their senses of sight and sound because they had the prophetic word. Finally we arrive at our verses, verses 20 and 21. Peter explains that this prophetic word is not just something he made up (i.e. his own private interpretation) to lend credibility to his claims. Rather, this prophetic word came from God as Peter (and his fellow apostles) were carried along by the Holy Spirit. In short, Peter is explaining to his readers why his testimony is trustworthy, and not warning them against misconstruing his testimony. Obviously, we ought not to misconstrue his testimony or any Scripture, but that is not what Peter was conveying here.