P
Pax
Guest
Mark Shea points out the following concerning Jerome:
- Status
P
Philthy
Guest
Hi Semper :tiphat:
Believe it or not I just finished reading the entire thread up to this point. Although the thread seems to be drifting away from the topic of 2Thess, I wish to add this concise commentary:
Your point regarding the inappropriateness of Catholic Apologists citing it (based upon your claim that the traditions referenced by Paul are undefined) misses the bigger point. The bigger point is that there is a thing known as tradition which, whatever it may be, is not Scripture but is just as binding as Scripture. That’s the big point, and one that obviates your self described “gotcha” line of reasoning. Catholics have this Tradition which Paul spoke of, Protestants do not, and this verse helps argue the Catholic position that such an entity should be a part of the true Church. Hence it is entirely appropriate - and effective! - for Catholic apologists to cite adn employ this verse.
More recent posting has been directed toward some ridiculous trail on the precise details of individuals’ thoughts in the formation of the canon. While it is mysterious how God uses normal human activities - disagreements included - to effect His will, the fact remains - as Pax has pointed out - that the exact same canon proposed in the 4th Century remains the same canon in use to this very day. But the larger point is this: Whether it was finalized at Trent or has been essentially unchanged since Rome, Carthage and Hippo, what’s the difference? You still dont agree with it! If you somehow believe the canon was in flux for all this time how can you possibly simultaneously believe that Scripture alone was meant to be the sole, infallible guiding light of Christianity? And if it wasnt, what was?
My advice? Stick to the bigger questions and the details will fall into place.
S
SemperReformada
Guest
I’m sorry you had to read the whole thread…
I’m afraid it wasn’t very pretty.
S
SemperReformada
Guest
Since you don’t know the contents of the tradition Paul was speaking of, how can you know it wasn’t ensripturated later?
And this is my point. You nor I can precisely define what tradition Paul is talking about.
Of course you have read all of my posts so you knew I was going to say that.
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
If you believe that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, as Paul tells us, then we can know exactly what Paul was talking about.
S
SemperReformada
Guest
Since your church hasn’t defined for us what Paul was talking about you won’t be able to at least as it applies to that particular verse.
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
Of course we do.
It is the apostolic tradition to which we have always held.
Some have rejected this foundation.
L
LeroyCRHP
Guest
I read a book where it states the number of “faithful” Protestants are about 20% of the number of members reported and as you say their birth rate is among the lowest so conversions are essential. There has also been decline of “faithful” Catholics also.
At high level Protestants have somewhat similar message about Jesus, but without having 2000 years of study on the bible and knowing it from the beginning have different traditions and beliefs that many people find easier. Contraception is ok, abortion is ok, miss church that’s ok, once saved always saved, etc.
T
Teflon93
Guest
That was the primary focus, yes, but of course there were other heresies afoot to do with the nature of God. The point is: if Scripture were the rule of faith on this, and if the Trinity were clearly defined within Scripture, where would these heresies—Arianism, Nestorianism, Marcionism et al—have come from?
One could surely simply point to Scripture----basic literacy, no Council needed.
Okay, if you choose the assumption, which by your understanding of how the Church defines dogma (incorrect as it is) did not happen till Vatican I, you except everything dogmatically defined by the Church pre-Vatican I.
Is that correct?
If it is incorrect, please provide the earliest Church tradition you do not accept.
T
Teflon93
Guest
A Unitarian is a nondenominational Christian sect—the first nondenominational sect I believe. They arose out of the Wesleyan tradition.
I presumed it couldn’t, thus the hypothetical.
Well, Google them. If you like, put “nondenominational Christian” in its place. I’m not trying to trip you up; I was simply seeking an example of Protestants at the lowest common denominator possible.
Then I would say that your definition of the gates of hell not prevailing over the church rested on their being so much as one person who held to Christ as Lord on the face of the Earth.
I’ll ask you for another example.
Again, just defining terms here—your previous definition was very broad.
T
Teflon93
Guest
Yes, the biggest shock to Christianity was when the mainline Protestant denominations embraced birth control and the sexual revolution in the 60s. They have been on a steep decline ever since.
Evangelicals and Fundamentalists of course both a) have a stricter disregard for premarital sex although they still embrace birth control and b) have a higher toleration for larger families than other Protestants do.
I certainly believe that if I could find demographic statistics which reliably broke down by denomination that birth rates among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists would be closer to Catholic ones than to other Protestants.
A quick and easy way to take the temperature of this is to see what communities are represented in pro-life events. Catholics dominate, evangelicals come next, Fundamentalists are an increasing presence (you might speculate as to why they’re not there in larger force), mainline Protestants typically are very poorly represented.
T
Teflon93
Guest
Regarding the ECFs taught by the Apostles, please see this link:
preteristvision.org/articles/apostolic_succession.html
Lest it be–ahem—misconstrued, I’ll post a telling excerpt from Irenaeus, who of course goes on about it in “Against Heresies”:
Irenaeus (a.d. 130-200)
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul–that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).
“Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (ibid., 3:3:4).
“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?” (ibid., 3:4:1).
“*t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church–those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (ibid., 4:26:2).
“The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere” (ibid., 4:33:8).
Another handy resource is Butler’s Lives of the Saints. Many of the Early Church Fathers having taken the path to sainthood that is martyrdom, their bios reference who they were taught by.
I previously linked to this compendium of the Church Fathers’ writings:
newadvent.org/fathers/
Pick an early father and read him; they were quite proud of whom they’d learned the faith from.
The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series contains several pages of short bios in the back of each volume pertaining to the Early Church Fathers—this is an ecumenical project so no one can claim that the Catholic and Orthodox invented such lists (much less the volumes of theology the ECFs produced).
Finally, there are 38 volumes of ECF writings available through this Christian bookstore.
christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=30815&netp_id=133214&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW&view=covers
Do you think that the ECFs were so hard to identify that these sources contain the same Fathers simply by accident?
But please read the article, which quotes the ECFs at length.*
preteristvision.org/articles/apostolic_succession.html
Lest it be–ahem—misconstrued, I’ll post a telling excerpt from Irenaeus, who of course goes on about it in “Against Heresies”:
Irenaeus (a.d. 130-200)
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul–that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).
“Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (ibid., 3:3:4).
“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?” (ibid., 3:4:1).
“*t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church–those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (ibid., 4:26:2).
“The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere” (ibid., 4:33:8).
Another handy resource is Butler’s Lives of the Saints. Many of the Early Church Fathers having taken the path to sainthood that is martyrdom, their bios reference who they were taught by.
I previously linked to this compendium of the Church Fathers’ writings:
newadvent.org/fathers/
Pick an early father and read him; they were quite proud of whom they’d learned the faith from.
The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series contains several pages of short bios in the back of each volume pertaining to the Early Church Fathers—this is an ecumenical project so no one can claim that the Catholic and Orthodox invented such lists (much less the volumes of theology the ECFs produced).
Finally, there are 38 volumes of ECF writings available through this Christian bookstore.
christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=30815&netp_id=133214&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW&view=covers
Do you think that the ECFs were so hard to identify that these sources contain the same Fathers simply by accident?
But please read the article, which quotes the ECFs at length.*
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
I would think that Real Presence would be a good candidate for Protestants.
(Yes, I’m still following this thread.)
T
Teflon93
Guest
I would as well. And God bless you for wading through all of these posts!
S
SemperReformada
Guest
You only asked me to pick a tradition…I picked the assumption. I don’t recall you asking me about a tradition that was dogmatized after a particular debate.
I don’t know when your church infallibly declared every tradition so I would rather stick w/ the assumption.
P
Philthy
Guest
M
MDK
Guest
Why isn’t everyone Catholic?
It certainly includes man’s rebellion of God’s authority, like a teenager to a parent. Reasons include ignorance, pride, etc.
It certainly includes man’s rebellion of God’s authority, like a teenager to a parent. Reasons include ignorance, pride, etc.
S
SemperReformada
Guest
The heresies above occured under the watchful eye of the infallible magesterium. How could a heresy ever develop under a body that was infallbile and could guide believers to all truth. Why call a council, why not just have the pope make a ruling. Since he is infallible and everyone in the early church understood this, why not just ask him, why have a council?
The fact is people ignore and misunderstand what your church teaches and also do the same with scripture.
I don’t believe that all of scripture is equally plain nor alike clear to everyone. So I don’t see why having a council is a problem nor do I think the councils are a bad thing. They can clarify issues so why would they be bad? Not to many years ago a group of evangelical scholars gathered in Chicago to defend biblical inerrancy. This group included men such as Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J.I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R.C. Sproul, and John Wenham. All of these men, to a man, believe in sola scriptura but yet saw a need to gather to clarify a position.
So…I don’t see a problem with having a council.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Semper,
Two questions come to mind:
- What would lead you (and those listed above) to the conclusion that scripture was inerrant but that tradtion was not? What is the special property of recording tradition (which is essentially what scripture is) that leads to inerrancy?
- What sort of argument would you envision coming from Catholics that would lead you toward (if not to) the conclusion that Catholic dogma was inerrantly true?
- Status