July 05, 2004
The Question of Authority: An Ecumenical Discussion
Thomas,
I thought it would be a good idea to recap, for our own sake, but also for the sake of any other readers trying to follow this discussion, the main points of our discussion thus far. If anything isn't correct please point it out. I will start from your first post and then work forward so we may recover several things. I will put your original questions/objections, as well as any comeback responses, in italics; my replies will be in bold text. For those wishing to read the original discussion please click on the link below:
Why Should You Consider The Catholic Church?
1. I don't think any Protestant has ever said that the Bible is the sole source of Truth and Authority.
- Most mainstream Protestant churches simply make the claim that the Bible is the "ultimate" source of Truth and Authority by which all things must be measured.
2. Truth can be revealed to us by God in any number of ways, through the church (I use lower case "c" to distinguish the entire Christian community of believers which include true Catholics from just merely the capital "C" Catholic Church, as I reject the notion that the Catholic Church is the sole possessor of the truth) and through individual revelation, traditions, etc. Also there are a number of authorities over our lives including the church. The issue isn't "Is the Bible the sole source of truth and authority?", but rather how much credibility should we give other sources?
- I find this train of thought interesting. You seem to be suggesting that "truth" has some sort of hierarchy of degrees of truthfulness. You ask the question of how much credibility we should give other sources of truth. I would say we have to give those sources total credibility if the "truth" revealed by that other source is indeed "true." Assuming that in your mind those other sources are channels of knowing truth, by God, as you initially stated, then they are completely believable if what they reveal is true. Truth is truth. One truth is just as believable as the other since both are equally true.
3. I think that we can all agree here that the Bible is at least a reliable source of Truth.
- How do we know this? What if it isn't? What proofs do we have that it is a reliable source of Truth? To an Atheist it is an "untruth." So again, how do we know that the Bible is a reliable source of Truth?
4. We can also agree that Truth shouldn't contradict itself. So if the Church or anyone else for that matter teaches a doctrine that runs contrary to the Scriptures what should we do? Whose authority is supreme? Or to put it another way, what trumps what?
- I will agree that Truth shouldn't contradict itself; in fact, I'll take it a step further Truth cannot contradict itself. The next part of your comment operates on two assumptions: (1) That we know the Bible is a reliable source of truth (a question for you to answer above) and (2) That the Bible is the measuring stick of all truth, assuming that it is a reliable source of truth. The common appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 won't do for "to say that all inspired writing 'has its uses' is one thing; to say that such a remark means that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote:
It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the Sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although Sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the Scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy. Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written even when St. Paul wrote this, and none of the Books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the Scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith. - Inspiration, 13 In
The last part of your question is in reference to whose authority is supreme. For now I ask that you be patient, I will address this under the next point.
5. I have not said that any doctrine of the Church is incorrect, other than call into question the issue of oral tradition as holding equal weight to Scripture.
- I think the first thing we need to do is define Tradition. I recently posted an article that detailed the Catholic Church's teaching in regard to the transmission of Divine Revelation, which includes Sacred Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. But for practical purposes I will sum Tradition up in a nutshell.
Tradition means the teachings and teaching authority of Jesus and, derivatively, the Apostles. These have been handed down and entrusted to the Church (which means to its official teachers, the bishops in union with the Pope). It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this Tradition as well as the Bible (Lk 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (Jn 14:16). – Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, pg. 137
So that being clearly said we can now continue so as to provide the necessary proofs of the cooperative nature of Sacred Scripture and Tradition.
6. How were the Apostles to keep the Church on course long after they had died? How were they to guard against heresy from the false prophet's teachings/traditions/doctrines to come?
- Through the threefold transmission of Divine Revelation found in Sacred Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. These inseparable, necessary aspects of the Church have sustained the Church down through the ages even to our present day. And least we forget, this is the Church Jesus founded, He sent the Holy Spirit to safeguard His Church.
7. Give me the writings of the Apostles themselves, show me where they expressly endorsed the Catholic Tradition then I will believe.
- Are you serious about this statement? If so, welcome home! I have above explained what Tradition is so now I will show how the Apostles supported it.
Paul illustrated what Tradition is: "The chief message I handed on to you, as it was handed one to me, was that Christ, as the scriptures foretold, died for our sins...That is our preaching, mine or theirs as you will; that is the faith that has come to you" (1 Cor 15:3, 11). He said also, to Timothy, who was a bishop, "Thou hast learned, from many who can witness to it, the doctrine which I hand down; give it into the keeping of men thou canst trust, men who will know how to teach it to others besides themselves" (2 Tim 2:2). In other words, Timothy, one of the successors to the apostles, was to teach what he had learned from his predecessor, Paul. The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I must praise you for your constant memory of me, for upholding your traditions just as I handed them on to you" (1 Cor 11:2).
The first Christians "occupied themselves continually with the apostles' teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a Bible. The fullness of Christian teaching was found, right from the first, in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its traditions, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). This saying is not found in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral Tradition that has been written down (Lk 1:1-4). What is more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians 'by the command of the Lord Jesus" (1 Th 4:2). – Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, pg. 137-138
8. You assume that the Oral Traditions that the Catholic Churches practices today are the same traditions mentioned by Paul in 2 Thess 2:25 and elsewhere. How do you know that this is the case?
- Since we have already made the case for the validity of Tradition we are now ready to discuss how we know that the Tradition of the Catholic Church today is the same as that of the Apostles. First it is important to understand the Catholic Church in no way claims to teach anything new. In fact, the Church teaches that all general revelation ended with Christ and the Apostles. The Church does more clearly define certain doctrines, but what does this imply. It implies a maturing of theological thought about a certain doctrine. The articulated definition of the Blessed Trinity is a prime example, the word Trinity never is used to describe God. It is also not a biblically obvious truth especially in defining the Holy Spirit as an individual, divine person in the Most Blessed Trinity. Defining or clarifying a certain doctrine does not change its essence. It progresses the truth into greater clarity without changing the fundamental truth. The Catholic Church is not in the business of making up new beliefs.
So with that clarified, I will now answer your question with my previous answer: I know that the oral Tradition of the Church today is the same as that of the Early Church (i.e. the Apostles and the first believers) because it is attested to throughout history either in writing or art. Now let me clarify what I mean. First, whether you approve or not, I appeal to the Early Church Fathers. You claim they are fallible men, and rightfully so, as were the Apostles I might add, yet the Holy Spirit guided them through apostolic succession. The Written Word was handed down as were the Tradition of the Church. In time that Tradition assembled the Bible. The Catholic Church assembled the Bible...historical fact. I want to go into this in greater detail but again be patient I will address it a little later when I cover another one of your comments. For now I will simply say this – I find it very hard to believe that the men and women that followed immediately after the Apostles could have already distorted the teachings of the Apostles. It just isn't plausible.
I also appealed to the presence of Catholic teaching in art (I will also include archeological proofs in this). The catacombs in Rome dating back to the 1st century display rough images on the walls of the Mass being said, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, with the images of virginity around her. The catacombs also contain the graves of the "successors of Peter, the Bishop of Rome". Many of the excavations of the catacombs included archeologists of all backgrounds not just Christian.
9. We all know that the Gospel that was preached was not "Oral Tradition" at the time Galatians was written, it was the preaching of eye witness accounts, and the teachings that Jesus himself had taught to his Apostles. Yes it was oral, in that it wasn't written down yet, but it was not Tradition (and I will give you the point that it was not written down yet, as it is not central to my argument). To say that Oral Tradition had occurred between the death of Christ and the writing of the Apostles, is like saying that the story of 9/11 is oral tradition.
- So what about the preaching that we know was being done by St. Paul before he went to Jerusalem, or better yet the preaching that St. Timothy was doing? St. Timothy wasn't an eyewitness, neither was St. Paul for that matter and we know that he instructed St. Timothy. Poor example with 9/11, mass media makes it easy for most of us to be aware of something second hand at worst. That was not the case during the Apostles time; many times those who heard the Apostles would in turn tell others and so forth.
10. Yet even if we agree that the "Gospel" that is being referred to in Galatians here included the Oral Tradition of the Apostles, to make the logical jump that thus all oral tradition what was subsequently taught by the Church should be considered on par as a revelation from God is preposterous. No if there is any oral tradition mentioned by Paul and included in his term of "Gospel" it was that oral tradition being preached by the Apostles.
- How does your proposal work in light of St. Luke's Gospel? There are things recorded in the first two chapters of his Gospel that can be found nowhere else, especially about the Blessed Virgin Mary. St. Luke is the only Evangelist to write of these things, none of the Apostles did. Secondly, why is it preposterous to think that the Magisterium of Catholic Church retained the divinely given authority to "loose and bind" on earth and in heaven (Matt 16:18-19)? Can you prove that it is untrue?
11. What if those histories and traditions (of the Catholic Church, possibly the Early Church as well) be they oral or not are themselves suspect? There may be such a thing as a self-authenticating document in law, but not here. I will be more specific. Can you give me any proof that the extraneous (meaning extra to what's in the Bible) traditions taught by the present Church are one and the same "traditions" mentioned in the Scripture by the Apostles, without using those traditions as proof?
- This question is a false dichotomy. You are attempting to tell me that I can't appeal to "traditions" for proof that what the Catholic Church teaches is the same as that mentioned in the Scriptures mentioned by the Apostles when in truth you, in defining "extraneous" are doing just that. First, you act on the assumption that the Catholic Church, living out that tradition of "preaching and teaching" through apostolic succession made the correct decision in assembling the Bible. Second, you act on the assumption that they chose the right books, I mean for sake of argument they could have chosen incorrectly since as you have asserted they are just "fallible men." Third, you then act on the assumption that these same "fallible men" in no way, shape, or form manipulated the Bible down through the ages until the time of Martin Luther (although in truth, Luther is the only person to have added a word to the Bible). Finally, you seem to limit the awesome power of our God and the working of the Holy Spirit. Is it impossible for Almighty God to guide a "Church" down through the ages, protecting its doctrines and dogmas? I know that you would rather trust the individual Bible reader's ability to discern what the Bible means to them in terms of faith and morals as well as how it measures all things, but come on you at least have to admit that it would make more sense to maintain spiritual leadership and authority with one "Church" rather than disperse that authority out to all believers. That simply wasn't God intention. One last thing...the teachings of the Catholic Church today are all rooted in Scripture.
12. The Bible itself is merely the collection of the divinely inspired books. They may have been collated by the Catholic Church, but they were not written by the Catholic Church, as you have repeatedly stated in this blog. And just because the Catholic Church collated them and formally announced that they are divinely inspired, doesn't mean that they had any authority one way or the other to declare that these writings were divinely written. In other words they weren't divinely inspired just because the Catholic Church said so. Either they are or they are not. For the vast majority of the writing, (and yes I know that there were some that were called into question, but why? not because of their content, but because the authorship was not immediately verifiable as being that of the Apostles or those who were with Christ) from the moment they were written they were recognized as divine inspiration and were thought of as such. The Catholic Church merely formally acknowledged them as such. If the Catholic Church had never collected these books into one New Testament, the church would still read each of them and view them as sacred, and it would not lessen the authority of their teachings over our lives. To say anything less is just plain wrong.
- Two things: (1) You seem to make a distinction above between the Catholic Church and the church when, in fact, at the time of the Bible's collation there was only the Catholic Church (even by name, again a historical fact); (2) here is a little history on the actual canon of Sacred Scripture and what the Catholic Church taught about the Bible:
"Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paraleipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Phillipians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle."
Pope Damasus(regn A.D. 366-384),Decree of,Council of Rome,The Canon of Scripture(A.D. 382),in DEN,33
"Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read, in the church under the title of divine writings.'. The canonical books are:---Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two books of Paraleipomena(Chronicles), Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:---the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted."
Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393), in HCC,2:400
"[It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are:Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paraleipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John."
Council of Carthage III,Canon 47(A.D. 397),in DEN,39-40
"The authority of our books [Scriptures], which is confirmed by agreement of so many nations, supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councils, is against you."
Augustine,Reply to Faustus the Manichean,13:5 (c.A.D. 400),in NPNF1,IV:201
"If any one shall say, or shall believe, that other Scriptures, besides those which the Catholic church has received, are to be esteemed of authority, or to be venerated, let him be anathema."
Council of Toledo,Canon 12 (A.D. 400),in FOC,1:445
"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the desiderata of which you wished to be informed verbally: of Moses five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Josue, of Judges one book, of Kings four books, also Ruth, of the Prophets sixteen books, of Solomon five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job one book, of Tobias one book, Esther one, Judith one, of the Machabees two, of Esdras two, Paralipomenon two books. Likewise of the New Testament: of the Gospels four books, of Paul the Apostle fourteen epistles, of John three, epistles of Peter two, an epistle of Jude, an epistle of James, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John."
Pope Innocent(regn A.D. 401-417),Epistle to Exsuperius Bishop of Toulose,6:7,13(A.D. 405),in DEN,42
"Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:--Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles --these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative. The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:--Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books. That of the New Testament, again, is contained within the following:--Four books of the Gospel, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John; fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul--one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews: two of Peter; three of John; one of Jude; and one of James; one book of the Acts of the Apostles; and one of the Revelation of John."
Augustine,On Christian Doctrine,2:8,12(A.D. 426),in NPNF1,II:538-539
The canon of Sacred Scripture was directly tied to the Catholic Church. It was not just some act of luck or temporary divine providence. It was the work of the Holy Spirit. With this lengthy quote I have also addressed another issue – the canon itself. Please note that all the books of the Apocrypha are listed by the various councils and by St. Augustine.
13. But we seem to forget in this discussion that there is a God, and I find it imminently plausible that God knows the fallibility of man, and he knew the church would need these writings, and caused them to be written so that we would not be thrown off track once the leadership of the Apostles were gone.
- Amen. But I likewise find it imminently plausible that God knowing the fallibility of man and man's need for leadership and authority would establish a Church in which apostolic succession would exist and continually guide the Church until the return of Jesus Christ. In fact I find it completely believable and necessary.
14. In Acts 1:20, we see the Apostles after the ascension of Christ getting together and they elect someone to replace Judas. First I want to point out the fact that the Apostles were smart enough to know that they must replace Judas with someone who had been with Christ from the beginning. (So much for perpetual Apostolic Succession). But Christ had just clearly told them to wait and not do anything until they had received the Holy Spirit, because if they didn't, as fallen humans, they were bound to screw it up. So what does Peter do before Pentecost, much like he was want to do in the past. He jumps the gun so to speak. He appoints Matthias to be Judas successor, however as we see later it was never up to him to appoint Judas' successor, Jesus does that himself, when he approaches Saul outside of Damascus. It is interesting that the successor that Peter chooses is never really heard from again, and the successor that Jesus chooses becomes a central figure of the early church, and writes much of the New Testament. This just shows that it was always Christ who chose the Apostles, and not the other Apostles who chose their replacements.
- And this little preposterous piece of exegesis is exactly why we need the Catholic Church to guide us in "true" biblical interpretation. You have got to be joking about this. First of all, if the Apostles were so smart in knowing the criteria for who could be an Apostle why didn't Jesus? St. Paul had not been with them from the beginning, in fact it is possible that St. Paul never saw Jesus during His earthly ministry. Secondly, Jesus never told the Apostles to "not do anything" until the Holy Spirit came, He simply told them not to depart from Jerusalem. Third, Scripture never says anywhere that St. Matthias was not considered to be an Apostle after St. Paul was converted nor does it anywhere imply that St. Peter and the other Apostles "jumped the gun." Several of the Early Church Fathers reference St. Matthias as an Apostle and one of the Twelve.
15. Remember most of the Protestant Reformers never wanted to leave the Church. They wanted to reform it, but they were forced to leave by the Church's refusal to give up teaching doctrines that were clearly not Apostolic, or not the true Gospel as mentioned in Galatians 1:8-9. Thus I would have no problem with submitting myself to the authority of the Catholic Church as long as the Catholic Church abided by the strict teaching of the New Testament. Unfortunately that won't happen.
- Exactly what doctrines are you (or the reformers) referring to? And what reformers? Next, the Catholic Church is the manifestation of Jesus Christ's love for us. Through His Church He has given us Baptism, Confession, the Eucharist, Confirmation, Matrimony, Holy Orders (Priesthood), and the Anointing of the Sick. The Sacramental life is the living out the Gospel, rooted in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, guided and protected by the Magisterium.
16. If the Magisterium is infallible what mental gymnastics do you do to explain Galatians 2:11-12.
- None. St. Paul renounced St. Peter for a particular action, not a teaching in matters of faith and morals. Again, infallibility applies to what the Pope teaches, with those bishops in union with him, in matters of faith and morals. St. Peter defines the teaching of the Church in Acts 11.
Now that this is covered I want to point out a few of my own questions that haven't been answered:
17. The Bible itself was assembled by these "fallen" men who came after the Apostles. The Apostles never instructed them to do this; at least it isn't in the Bible? So is the Bible, as a group of assembled books biblical?
18. I would like to point out that the Catholic Church does not consider the writings of the Early Church Fathers to be of equal value to Sacred Scripture but rather a testimony to the validity of the Gospel message. Several of them (the Early Church Fathers) had direct contact with the Apostles. So why would they teach something so contradictory to that which they had received (from the Apostles)?
19. I also would like to know what doctrines of Protestantism we have falsely presented (you can simply email this to me).
Throughout this article, I have made many points and asked questions, please reference the question/point number above when replying to them.
In Christ,
Joe
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
1. Bingo, the bible is the an important tool to measure anyones doctrine against. We also have the Holy spirit which shows truth.
2. Not sure if your'e making logical sense. You are assuming infalibility on the part of that Catholic Church which is what we are really trying find out is actually true in the first place. Also saying that the bible is "The Truth" and the Catholic is a source a of truth does not make them equals. Or better yet, its like saying NYC is in New York therefore if I'm in New York then I must be in NYC. Thats a fallacy.
3. The orginal statement was assuming that all Christian believe the bible is fully true and not part lies or all lies. We are not talking to Atheist we are talking to people who are suppose have faith in Christ. If your are goig to argue "how do we know" then you might as well just become an agnostic becuase you can't imperically prove anything. Philosophically speaking the only thing you can prove for sure is that you exist amd all other things are inquestion. We though who follow Christ believe in the bible.
4. (1) So you want a reply that proves the Bible as absolute truth? I could tell you about all the archaeological evidence but you could argue that it was all mas hesteria. In actualality its like me asking if you killed your wife and you saying how do know my wife is real. We all assume your wife is real. That doesn't makes us wrong.
(2) Is the Catholic position that the bible is not fully true? If true then we are agruing in circles. Even herectical groups like the mormons and the jehovahs witness believe the bible is true! Members of Judaism, Islam, Hindus, etc... don't believe in the bible, are you in concert with them?
Stan,
First of all, this discussion is not with you. I would ask that all readers refrain from commenting on this post. This discussion is between Thomas and myself. If you have something that will support Thomas' position please email it to him (you can do this by clicking on his name, it is a link to his email). Anyone having something to support the Catholic position please just email it to me.
Stan, I will answer your objections here but if you want to reply please email your response to Thomas and I.
1. Saying the Bible is an important tool to measure one's doctrine against and saying that it is the only tool are two totally different things. The Catholic Church believes that it is an important tool used in measuring one's doctrine.
2. Your argument here isn't correct, for to say the Bible is the "Truth" and that the Church is a source of truth is not a logical conclusion because I was comparing "truths", so what you would need to compare would be the statement the Bible is the "Truth" and this "truth" taught by the Church is true. Both being true, they are equal in truthfulness, one is not less true than the other.
3. Just answer the question....How do we know that the Bible is a reliable source of truth, a divinely inspired source of truth? It shouldn't matter whether we are Catholic or Protestant, we should be able to present a logical, feesible answer to this question. How would you win Atheists over to the truth of the Gospel if you cannot convince them of this?
4. (1) Yes, I want an answer showing that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth. Archaeology is a valid support of something, especially with today's technology. But it does not answer this question. The different books of the Bible can be most certainly shown to be old but divinely inspired is something else, this is something that archaeology cannot prove. The Koran and the Book of Mormon both claim to be divinely inspired books but are they? Yet all Christians, Catholics and Protestants believe the the Bible is divinely inspired. How do Protestants know that the Bible is divinely inspired?
4. (2) The Catholic Church does believe that the Bible is divinely inspired. By the way, Jehovah Witnesses do not believe in the same Bible as we do, they have substantially manipulated various books in the Bible to fit their beliefs, including the belief that Jesus is just a god instead of the God. But back to the matter at hand, we are not arguing in circles by asking our Protestant brothers and sisters to prove that they are correct in their belief that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth and divinely inspired, in fact this question gets right to the heart of the matter. So answer the question.
In Christ,
Joe
First of all I want to clarify who I am. I am a layman and not on staff with any church, and I have never been formally trained in these matters. Therefore in my comments I don’t represent any particular church or protestant denomination, and I especially don’t want to be viewed as representing Protestantism as a whole. These are weighty issues and it makes me more than a little nervous to pit this as a Protestant v. Catholic argument, with me as the champion of Protestantism. If any who are reading this disagree with me, or if I misrepresent a particular Protestant doctrine or Protestantism as a whole, just view it merely the fumbling of a layman, and do not let it turn you off from seeking answers further from another source. Also I do have a family and I do work for a living, but I will try to devote as much time as I can, however my response may be piece meal.
With that said I will attempt to answer to your satisfaction the questions/issues as you have defined them.
1. You or your colleges stated that Protestant’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura means that we believe that the Bible is the “SOLE source of truth and authority”. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am glad that you have since modified your position to state that most Protestant denominations state that Scripture is the ULTIMATE source of truth and authority and which all other things must be measured. I think that this fairly represents the position.
2. Let me explain myself a little further. I agree that truth is true, and it cannot be anything else. If we can’t agree on this then this will inevitably lead us into relativism and ultimately to chaos and despair. However, knowing what is truth and being able to differentiate this from untruth is a different issue entirely. There are people/beings that proclaim things as true that are not true. However, do not despair. God has not left man at the mercy of these people/beings, and has given man a number of skills and tools to distinguish between what is truth and what is untruth. So what we have here are various “claims of truth” I will call them. Of course some are true and some are not. The question then becomes which is which, and how can we know with any certainty that a particular claim of truth is indeed true? I will address later your question of how we indeed know that Scripture is Truth, let’s just for now assume that this is the case. Now there are many other claims of truth out there aside from Scripture, but how do we know that they are in fact true. One of these skills/tools that man has been given is the ability to reason and think logically. I think that we have come up with so to speak a law of truth that Truth cannot contradict itself. So the first thing we should do when confronted by a claim of truth is compare it to what we already know to be true. If it contradicts this Truth then we must reject it as untrue. Once again assuming that the Scripture is at least a piece of Truth, we would for example look at the claim of truth “that there is no God”, as a direct contradiction of established Truth and reject it. Thus we must always compare claims of truth to things we already know and have established are true. I repeat that the Bible is not the sole source of Truth and authority. Truth can come from other areas. I will even agree that it can come from the Church’s teaching, Traditions as well as the writing of the Early Church Fathers. However, until they are proven otherwise they must be considered merely claims of truth. In other words if anyone including the Early Church Fathers (to which you derive your knowledge of Tradition) stated something that was directly contrary to Scripture, since we know that Scripture is True and we know that truth cannot contradict itself we must reject whatever it is that the Early Church Fathers stated. As you can see the opposite is not true however. If anyone including the Early Church Fathers stated something that was directly contrary to Scripture, we do not throw Scripture out. If this is the case then Scripture is the ultimate authority to which all other claims of truth must be measured. (However, even if a statement does not contradict established truth, that in and of itself does not make it true. The next step is to determine the reliability of the statement, ie who it came from etc. To me because of man’s proclivity to sin and because the heart of man is desperately wicked, any statement from any man should be considered false, unless it can be proven to be true at least in the realm of spirituality. The problem with Tradition is that you are basing your knowledge of Tradition on not first hand information, not even second hand knowledge, but the first written reports of extra biblical Tradition are from at best third and fourth hand information, and in most cases 200-300 years after the individuals who allegedly pronounced them have long since died, and can no longer stand up and write “You foolish Church who has bewitched you?” )
To be Continued . . .
3.
a.) The New Testament was written by the eye witnesses or the first hand accounts of the eye witnesses during the lifetime of those eye witnesses. If anyone were to contradict these accounts they would have done so then. II Peter 1:16
b) The Bible was written over 1,500 year by over 40 different authors and yet when it comes down to it, it has the same theme and message. God’s dealings with and redemption of a fallen man.
c) The Bible has been one of the most often criticized and analyzed book in the world, and yet no one can claim that it has made any mistakes in prophecy, history, or describing the state of man and God.
d) It accurately describes the state of man and his relationship with God as can be viewed in society today. In other words it makes total sense in light of the state of the world today.
e) It has survived throughout history intact, even though its teaching at times were violently opposed.
f) Its message has changed the lives of countless millions and guided them on a course of true repentance and redemption.
g) The Apostles died for the message of the gospel. Only a great fool would do so for a cause he knows to be false.
There are others, but I think that these reasons should suffice for now.
4. I think that I have answered you two points to this. As far as the quote from Mr. Newman goes, sure Paul did not mean the New Testament at the time as most of it was not written yet, but he also didn’t say that God’s revelation through the Scripture as we know it was closed. There was room at the time for future written revelation, and Paul knew it. He may not have realized what he was writing at the time, but since we know that there was further written revelation the point is moot. It is interesting that Mr. Newman only quotes the first part of the verse, and neglects the rest ie: “. . . so that the man of God may be THOROUGHLY equipped for EVERY good work.” This sounds pretty sufficient to me. It is here that the true rub lies, and where we should be devoting our time, the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture, not the doctrine of the authority of Scripture. Does the Scripture contain everything that man needs to know to be justified and sanctified before God? I say a resounding yes! I know you have used the metaphor of a boat and swimmers. I think that the more appropriate metaphor is like this. You have two boats. The first is weighted down by centuries of excessive Traditions, and you have a boat that is light and with just enough provisions to make the crossing. Sure both might get you there, but which boat would you choose? More on this later.
5. In other words Tradition means whatever the Catholic Church says it means nothing more or less. Of course unless the Catholic Church doesn’t mean what it previously meant in which case that would not fall under the definition of Tradition as it would be merely a clarification of the existing Tradition. I guess that does clear things up.
6. Jesus Christ founded the “c”hurch. He did not found the “C”hurch. His legacy is not necessarily Rome. It is whoever is teaching, proclaiming and living the Gospel, where ever they may be found. It is this church that is constaintly referred to throughout Scripture. Can you honestly say that protestant missionaries that are giving their lives for the preaching of the Gospel are not a part of the body of Christ?
7. Once again you assume that the traditions mentioned in the New Testament are one and the same as the Traditions taught by the Church today. An assumption you still have not adequately defended at least in my mind. I will give you that Paul and many of the other writers mention tradition in their writings. How do you know that the traditions that they mentioned were not later addressed in the writing of the future epistles, so that the final written Scripture is sufficient and all encompassing? To me you haven’t proven anything.
8. First of all you stated that the doctrine of the Trinity was not mentioned per se in the Bible, and yet it exist, which I too believe, and yet you disregard the doctrine of Sola Scriptura because it is not mentioned in Scripture. At least be intellectually honest and use the same rules for all doctrines. Also I don’t know why you keep on insisting that I am arguing with you regarding the collation of the Scripture. I freely admit that the Catholic Church put together the Scripture. It certainly wasn’t a group of nomads in the upper Siberian peninsula who did it. As the only organized church in existence at the time it was the only church to have the opportunity to. You stated that “Tradition assembled the Bible.” I am not to sure what you mean by this. You stated that “I find it hard to believe that the men and women that followed immediately after the Apostles could have already distorted the teachings of the Apostles. It just isn’t plausible.” Are you serious about this? With the state that man is in, in constant rebellion, utter depravity and dead in his sins? Even after becoming a Christian we are still so easily sidetracked. I repeat again. Are you serious? Even at the time of the Apostles themselves the church was already distorting the Apostles teachings. It didn’t take a few generations and most definitely didn’t take a couple hundred years. “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and a kind that does not occur even among pagans: a man has his father’s wife. And you are proud!” I Cor. 5:1-2; “For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preach, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.” II Cor 11:4; “ I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different Gospel which is really no Gospel at all.” Gal. 1:6-7 “You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.” Gal. 3:1 "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them - bringing swift destruction on theselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute." II Peter 2:1-2; Paul and the rest were constantly rebuking and correcting the early church for falling into false teaching. The Apostles were constantly worrying about false teachings and teachers that threatened the church from all sides, and warning of these false teachings. Do you honestly think that none of these false teachings sank into the Traditions of the Church after the Apostles died? On the other hand, I know for a fact that these false teachings didn’t sink into the Scriptures after the Apostles died. I shutter to think how far from the truth we would be without Scripture and with only the Church and Tradition to guide us. As for your appeal to archeology, I’m sure that archeologist have also found excavations of the 1st century Gnostics as well. As you pointed out archeology in and of itself does not prove that something is true only that something is old, and as I have already pointed out, heresy is almost as old as the Gospel itself.
9. You stated “what about the preaching that was being done by St. Paul before he went to Jerusalem, or better yet the preaching that St. Timothy was doing?” First of all the issue before us is what Paul meant by the term Gospel in his letter to the Galatians. As I have stated before the Gospel referred to there was the Gospel preached by the Apostles, and only that Gospel and no other. If Timothy was preaching a Gospel other than that one then, he wasn’t preaching the right one. So to explain myself further only the Gospel as preached by the Apostles, was in turn preached by others. If any other Gospel was preached it was a false one. But the truth of the Gospel originally came from the Apostles not from Timothy. My point is that the Apostles were still alive at the time that these things were written. It wasn’t as if I told you and you told someone else and that person told someone else and so on, that the person at the end of the line couldn’t have gone back to the originator of the story and asked “Is that true what I was told?” In my mind in order for something to become oral tradition it must be passed on from generation to generation. In other words the originator or eye witness of the story must have died.
10. Luke’s Gospel is what it is. Luke himself spoke with the eye witnesses of the events contained therein. I think we need to define the term Gospel. I think this is where we are getting confused. When I say Gospel, I mean it in the same way that Paul meant it. The “Good News” of what Christ has done for us, not necessarily the written out story of Christ’s life and teachings, as shown in the four Gospels. With that said I’m not sure where you are going with this. As for the authority to “loose and bind”, it was given to the Apostles. It was never given to their successors. Can you prove otherwise? I think the burden of proof lies with the Church being the entity claiming authority from God.
To be Continued . . .
P.S. The deeper I dig through Scripture on these issues the more I am convinced that I am right.
Posted by: Thomas at July 7, 2004 12:41 AMThomas,
I decided to reply to your second comment first since it was getting to the heart of the matter. I will reply to your first comment later. Like yourself, I am a layman with a family and have obligations that I must attend to as well. I commend you on your zeal for the Lord and for your willingness to engage in this discussion. Regardless of whether or not we have received formal training in these matters, it is important that we be able to give an account for what we believe and why we believe it.
Your brother in Christ,
Joe
Now on with our discussion.
3.
a.) The New Testament was written by the eye witnesses or the first hand accounts of the eye witnesses during the lifetime of those eye witnesses. If anyone were to contradict these accounts they would have done so then. II Peter 1:16
- There is historical proof that the books of the New Testament, at least, were written by the said authors, the Apostles. There have been questionings of the authorship of the Book of Hebrews and, of course one of the most debated books of the New Testament, the Second Epistle of St. Peter. Yet we have many writings from that time that the authorship is certain and the ancient documents are available, including the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The question is does historical validation immediately imply the truth of what is written? More importantly, did any of the Apostles claim that what they wrote was divinely inspired and should be considered Scripture?
b) The Bible was written over 1,500 year by over 40 different authors and yet when it comes down to it, it has the same theme and message. God’s dealings with and redemption of a fallen man.
- How does this contribute to whether or not the Bible is a reliable source of truth, or more specifically an infallible source of truth? Yes, it was written over a period of 1500 years by 40 different authors. The theme has been been about God’s covenantal love with creation, but specifically with Man. But what does a unified theme prove? All of the authors were Jews, with the exception of St. Luke. In reference to the Old Testament, it makes perfect sense that they would at the very least want to be consistent in the theme of their Scriptures.
c) The Bible has been one of the most often criticized and analyzed book in the world, and yet no one can claim that it has made any mistakes in prophecy, history, or describing the state of man and God.
- Actually many have claimed that the Bible is not always historically accurate, specifically the Old Testament. Many have likewise claimed that the Bible is just a good book to read, but not the inspired word of God or not the complete Word of God (Muslims and Mormons, specifically). The Jews claim that the Old Testament is the inspired Word of God, but not the New Testament. So to make the statement that “no one can claim that it has made any mistakes in prophecy, history, or describing the state of man and God” is not accurate.
d) It accurately describes the state of man and his relationship with God as can be viewed in society today. In other words it makes total sense in light of the state of the world today.
- Please expand of this. Many people believe that Islam makes total sense today, hence its rapid growth in our nation and around the world. How does this argument prove that the Bible is a reliable source of truth?
e) It has survived throughout history intact, even though its teaching at times were violently opposed.
- It has survived in intact, as the Bible, since around 393 A.D. long after the time of Jesus Christ and the Apostles. For the record, the Koran has likewise survived throughout history intact, as has the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, Josephus, and many others. Historical longevity does not automatically imply truthfulness.
f) Its message has changed the lives of countless millions and guided them on a course of true repentance and redemption.
- Agreed, but the Koran has likewise changed the lives of countless millions and guided them, on what they believe is the course of is true and redemptive. So this alone cannot be a testament to the truthfulness of the Bible because then we must apply the same to the Koran.
g) The Apostles died for the message of the gospel. Only a great fool would do so for a cause he knows to be false.
- How many millions of people have died for their beliefs in Islam, Buddhism, or Judaism (just to name a few)? I won’t be so hasty to call these people “foolish,” they died for what they believed was true. Dying for one's belief in something does not make it true.
There are others, but I think that these reasons should suffice for now.
- Go ahead and provide the other arguments
4. I think that I have answered you two points to this. As far as the quote from Mr. Newman goes, sure Paul did not mean the New Testament at the time as most of it was not written yet, but he also didn’t say that God’s revelation through the Scripture as we know it was closed. There was room at the time for future written revelation, and Paul knew it. He may not have realized what he was writing at the time, but since we know that there was further written revelation the point is moot. It is interesting that Mr. Newman only quotes the first part of the verse, and neglects the rest ie: “. . . so that the man of God may be THOROUGHLY equipped for EVERY good work.” This sounds pretty sufficient to me. It is here that the true rub lies, and where we should be devoting our time, the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture, not the doctrine of the authority of Scripture. Does the Scripture contain everything that man needs to know to be justified and sanctified before God? I say a resounding yes! I know you have used the metaphor of a boat and swimmers. I think that the more appropriate metaphor is like this. You have two boats. The first is weighted down by centuries of excessive Traditions, and you have a boat that is light and with just enough provisions to make the crossing. Sure both might get you there, but which boat would you choose? More on this later.
- Where does St. Paul claim that what he was writing should be considered Scripture? Where does he claim that what he wrote was divinely inspired? Newman didn’t need to quote the rest of the verse for the same applies to it. It is one thing to be “THOROUGHLY equipped for EVERY good work” yet something different to be “COMPLETELY equipped.” His argument still holds true in that if your logic is to be applied than we don’t need the New Testament, since St. Paul is only speaking of the Old Testament Scriptures. We all agree that this cannot be so, for, as Christians, we believe the New Testament is absolutely needed.
5. In other words Tradition means whatever the Catholic Church says it means nothing more or less. Of course unless the Catholic Church doesn’t mean what it previously meant in which case that would not fall under the definition of Tradition as it would be merely a clarification of the existing Tradition. I guess that does clear things up.
- No, your “in other words” definition is not what it says. It says: “Tradition means the teachings and teaching authority of Jesus Christ, and, derivatively, the Apostles.” One cannot separate Scripture from Tradition for the two are inseparably connected.
6. Jesus Christ founded the “c”hurch. He did not found the “C”hurch. His legacy is not necessarily Rome. It is whoever is teaching, proclaiming and living the Gospel, where ever they may be found. It is this church that is constaintly referred to throughout Scripture. Can you honestly say that protestant missionaries that are giving their lives for the preaching of the Gospel are not a part of the body of Christ?
- The only Christian “C”hurch from the time of Christ until approximately the year 900 A.D. was the Catholic Church. After the Greek Schism, there was no other Christian church until the 15th century. So it is safe to say that it was the Catholic Church that was founded by Jesus Christ. If you can historical prove that this isn’t the case by all means do so.
7. Once again you assume that the traditions mentioned in the New Testament are one and the same as the Traditions taught by the Church today. An assumption you still have not adequately defended at least in my mind. I will give you that Paul and many of the other writers mention tradition in their writings. How do you know that the traditions that they mentioned were not later addressed in the writing of the future epistles, so that the final written Scripture is sufficient and all encompassing? To me you haven’t proven anything.
- Because the Traditions of the Church today are biblically based, but also because they are attested to by history, something the Protestant Church cannot claim. I don’t understand why this isn’t a valid proof for you. Also, and most importantly, is the fact that out of this Catholic Tradition came the Bible, making the two intrinsically connected. Again, neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever ordered the compiling of the Bible, so is the Bible, as a compilation of books biblical? Yet to get back to the heart of the matter, how do you know that the Bible is a reliable source of truth, a divinely inspired source of truth?
8. First of all you stated that the doctrine of the Trinity was not mentioned per se in the Bible, and yet it exist, which I too believe, and yet you disregard the doctrine of Sola Scriptura because it is not mentioned in Scripture. At least be intellectually honest and use the same rules for all doctrines. Also I don’t know why you keep on insisting that I am arguing with you regarding the collation of the Scripture. I freely admit that the Catholic Church put together the Scripture. It certainly wasn’t a group of nomads in the upper Siberian peninsula who did it. As the only organized church in existence at the time it was the only church to have the opportunity to. You stated that “Tradition assembled the Bible.” I am not to sure what you mean by this. You stated that “I find it hard to believe that the men and women that followed immediately after the Apostles could have already distorted the teachings of the Apostles. It just isn’t plausible.” Are you serious about this? With the state that man is in, in constant rebellion, utter depravity and dead in his sins? Even after becoming a Christian we are still so easily sidetracked. I repeat again. Are you serious? Even at the time of the Apostles themselves the church was already distorting the Apostles teachings. It didn’t take a few generations and most definitely didn’t take a couple hundred years. “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and a kind that does not occur even among pagans: a man has his father’s wife. And you are proud!” I Cor. 5:1-2; “For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preach, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.” II Cor 11:4; “ I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different Gospel which is really no Gospel at all.” Gal. 1:6-7 “You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.” Gal. 3:1 "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them - bringing swift destruction on theselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute." II Peter 2:1-2; Paul and the rest were constantly rebuking and correcting the early church for falling into false teaching. The Apostles were constantly worrying about false teachings and teachers that threatened the church from all sides, and warning of these false teachings. Do you honestly think that none of these false teachings sank into the Traditions of the Church after the Apostles died? On the other hand, I know for a fact that these false teachings didn’t sink into the Scriptures after the Apostles died. I shutter to think how far from the truth we would be without Scripture and with only the Church and Tradition to guide us. As for your appeal to archeology, I’m sure that archeologist have also found excavations of the 1st century Gnostics as well. As you pointed out archeology in and of itself does not prove that something is true only that something is old, and as I have already pointed out, heresy is almost as old as the Gospel itself.
- The pointing out of the straying from the teachings of the Apostles even while the Apostles were alive proves only one thing. That physical leadership would be all the more necessary as the Church grew and that that leadership would need the same authority as the Apostles. Careful on the archaeology comment, we, as Christians, rely heavily on archaeology to prove the validity of the actual text of our Bibles. The Dead Sea Scrolls were a major find in proving that what we have in the Old Testament today is accurate with what was in the Old Testament at the time of Christ. Second, you do know that the oldest manuscripts we have of the New Testament books only date back to the between the years 250 and 450 A.D. (much of this in bits and pieces, and the majority of it being found in Eygpt)? They are not original manuscripts in terms of authorship, meaning they are not the actual manuscripts written by the Apostles themselves. So again how do we know that the Bible is a reliable source of truth, a divinely inspired source of truth?
9. You stated “what about the preaching that was being done by St. Paul before he went to Jerusalem, or better yet the preaching that St. Timothy was doing?” First of all the issue before us is what Paul meant by the term Gospel in his letter to the Galatians. As I have stated before the Gospel referred to there was the Gospel preached by the Apostles, and only that Gospel and no other. If Timothy was preaching a Gospel other than that one then, he wasn’t preaching the right one. So to explain myself further only the Gospel as preached by the Apostles, was in turn preached by others. If any other Gospel was preached it was a false one. But the truth of the Gospel originally came from the Apostles not from Timothy. My point is that the Apostles were still alive at the time that these things were written. It wasn’t as if I told you and you told someone else and that person told someone else and so on, that the person at the end of the line couldn’t have gone back to the originator of the story and asked “Is that true what I was told?” In my mind in order for something to become oral tradition it must be passed on from generation to generation. In other words the originator or eye witness of the story must have died.
- So the Gospel, as preached by the Apostles, was handed down, to successors, who were entrusted with preaching it faithfully and finding others to preach that same Gospel faithfully? This is sounding a lot like….Catholic Tradition. Keep in mind historically we know that the Bible wasn’t compiled until approximately 393 A.D. and that most of the various churches didn’t have all of the written gospels nor all the epistles of the Apostles. One church would have one letter; another would have a different letter. My point being that there had to be a lot of oral preaching of the Gospel occurring during the first 400 years of Christianity.
10. Luke’s Gospel is what it is. Luke himself spoke with the eye witnesses of the events contained therein. I think we need to define the term Gospel. I think this is where we are getting confused. When I say Gospel, I mean it in the same way that Paul meant it. The “Good News” of what Christ has done for us, not necessarily the written out story of Christ’s life and teachings, as shown in the four Gospels. With that said I’m not sure where you are going with this. As for the authority to “loose and bind”, it was given to the Apostles. It was never given to their successors. Can you prove otherwise? I think the burden of proof lies with the Church being the entity claiming authority from God.
- My point is this; we don’t find any of the other evangelists preaching about some of the things St. Luke wrote about in the first two chapters of his Gospel. So how do we know that he recorded their Gospel faithfully, since he was a second-hand witness? In terms of succession, that authority was clearly given as something to be passed down by Christ Himself in giving Peter the “keys”(Matt 16:19).
To be Continued . . .
P.S. The deeper I dig through Scripture on these issues the more I am convinced that I am right.
- Yet you still haven’t proven that we can know that the Bible is a reliable source of truth, a divinely inspired source of truth….
11. The question still stands. It hasn’t been answered, because it cannot be answered. You are standing on shaky ground. You stated that “the teachings of the Catholic Church today are all rooted in Scripture” the Jehovah’s Witness can also make this claim, as well as most cults and church denominations. This statement doesn’t help decipher what is and is not true. As we all know the Bible can be manipulated to any number of ends. For 90% of the Scripture the assembly of the Bible was easy. As I have repeatedly stated and it looks like you have backed up with your lengthy post on the 12th issue, the early church viewed these various books already as inspired. They did so from the very beginning.
12. I stand on what I stated before.
13. The church that was established was the entire body of believers not the hierarchical organized Catholic Church.
14. Jesus could change his own rules, the Apostles could not. Even if the rest of the analysis is incorrect, which I do not believe is the case, the fact remains that the Apostles realized they needed to pick someone who had been with Jesus from the beginning. And as for your comment “we need the Catholic Church to guide us in "true" biblical interpretation”, why is that so they can interpret the more preposterous notion of the Immaculate Conception from five words in the Bible?
15. I don’t have the time to research or go into this. If you want a history lesson then look it up in a history book. Are you stating that the reformers really had no reason to be in disagreement with the Church?
16. I figured that would be your response.
17. As I stated numerous times, these writings were inspired not because the Catholic Church stated they were around 400 AD, but because they are. If they had never been assembled they still would individually be viewed as sacred. The Bible was assembled more for convenience than for any other purpose, to have the various holy writings in one place. So to answer your question point blank is the assembly of the Scriptures Biblical? No it is not in the Bible, but this doesn’t really get us anywhere does it? The only thing it does is intimate that we should rip the Bible apart into each separate book.
18. I think I answered this in an early post. I never stated that the teachings of the early church were contradictory, only superfluous. As I think I have shown, and clearly it is shown in the Bible that the early church was constantly being thrown off track, during the time of the apostles. Why is it so hard to believe that they would be ever more slightly thrown off track, and introduce doctrines the apostles never taught, once the apostles were gone?
19. I will email them to you when I get a chance, but we have already talked about a least one. Sola Scriptura.
The bottom line is this. The Church has introduced teachings that are clearly not in the Bible. Whether they are grounded in or based on Scripture is up for debate. You believe that the Catholic Church was instituted by Christ. I believe that the church referred to in Scripture was not the organized Catholic Church, but it refers to the whole body of believers that followed the teachings of the Apostles. You believe that the Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ and was given the Holy Spirit to protect it from false teaching. I believe that the body of believers was given the Holy Spirit so that as long as they remained in the Spirit and followed the teachings of the Apostles they would not fall into false teachings. You believe that the Church was granted the Holy Spirit and thus the actions of the leadership in teaching of faith and morals are infallible. I believe that the Church is twisting a bit of authority given only to the Apostles to justify teaching whatever doctrines it wants to. You believe that the Church’s Tradition flows out of this infallibility, the Holy Spirit’s Protection, and the Church’s interpretation of the Scripture as well as what the early Church fathers believed and wrote. I believe that these Traditions are extra pieces of lent picked up over time, that do not mean anything, and that they are not what the Apostles were referring to as tradition in the Scripture. They only serve at best to distract us from the true Gospel proclaimed by the Apostles. For example the various doctrines of Mary. I was explaining these doctrines to my wife, and her first reaction wasn’t “That’s not true!” nor was it “That’s not in the Bible!” it was “Who cares?”. These doctrines are interesting bits of trivia to be debated about by theologians in their spare time. They are not doctrines that should be the focal point of the Church. I am sorry but Mary was a very minor figure in the minds of the writers of Scripture. The Church seems to get so caught up on defending these dumb doctrines that they loss sight on the what the Apostles believed was the central and all important figure. Christ. Throughout Scripture it is Christ and Him crucified. Christ, his sacrifice. Christ, his teachings and example. Christ, his redemptive work. Christ. Christ. Christ. Christ. When the Church losses it’s focus on Christ it does so at its own peril. Who cares whether or not Mary was a perpetual virgin? Does this fact one way or the other really have any impact on me or my relationship with my Creator? Who cares whether or not the body and wine at communion really turns into His literal flesh and blood? Does this change the fact that we are commanded to remember Him and what He did for us? These traditions do nothing more than get us off our focus, what is suppose to be our first love. Christ. Read through the Scripture, it is absolutely clear that to the Apostles, Christ was the focus. The Church has introduced extra beliefs that are not central nor are they necessary. They have taken what the Apostles and Christ taught and laid on top of it regulations, ceremony and doctrines, that do nothing, but take away the main focus of the Church’s existence. Doesn’t any of this sound familiar? It would seem we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Tradition is nothing new, and the reliance of our beliefs on tradition is nothing new. Moses through divine revelation established the Law and commissioned a Priesthood to guard that Law. What did that Priesthood do? It so warped what was written with centuries of tradition, that it made the Law itself a joke. Isn’t this exactly what Christ got so angry about in His day? “Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, ‘Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash there hand before they eat! Jesus replied “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? . . . Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.”” Matthew 15:1-9 See also Mark 7:6-8 It is interesting that Christ and even the Apostles never quoted from the tradition of their day, and Christ usually held those traditions in contempt. But they repeatedly quoted the written Scripture. There is just something about what is written . . . With this post I am retiring from this conversation. I have already spent way too much time and energy on it, and I believe that I have nothing more to say on this subject.
Peace,
Thomas
P.S. I have enjoyed this discussion, and have found it to be immensely profitable to me. However, I think we could go round and round and not come to any resolution. We already seem to be repeating ourselves. I apologize that I will be unable to further this discussion, but I think that I need to get back what’s important in my life, my walk with God, my family, and my other commitments. I may after a spell come back and answer your other questions, but for now I am exhausted. One last question, and this is out of my own curiosity more than anything else, How do you deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church's claim to be the one true church through Apostlic succession?
Posted by: Thomas at July 7, 2004 01:28 PMThomas,
Ditto and Amen.
God Bless, Stan
Posted by: Stan at July 8, 2004 01:38 PMThomas,
Sorry for the delay, life has been a bit hectic this week. I've kept the same form we have used thus far; your comments in italics, mine in bold.
11. The question still stands. It hasn’t been answered, because it cannot be answered. You are standing on shaky ground. You stated that “the teachings of the Catholic Church today are all rooted in Scripture” the Jehovah’s Witness can also make this claim, as well as most cults and church denominations. This statement doesn’t help decipher what is and is not true. As we all know the Bible can be manipulated to any number of ends. For 90% of the Scripture the assembly of the Bible was easy. As I have repeatedly stated and it looks like you have backed up with your lengthy post on the 12th issue, the early church viewed these various books already as inspired. They did so from the very beginning.
- No Thomas, in truth, the question doesn’t still stand wanting an answer. I can show that Catholic doctrine is rooted in Sacred Scripture, unlike Jehovah’s Witnesses who don’t even believe that Jesus is Almighty God, but I refuse to make Scripture my “sole” appeal. In fact, as a Christian, I shouldn’t have to. If the Church of history isn’t constant in her teaching and handing on of the Gospel message than Christianity losing validity in its claim to be absolute truth, for truth doesn’t change it must remain constant. The Church of the first four centuries didn’t have a Bible, and as I’ve said early, most individual churches of various regions only possessed one or two writings of the apostles. So without a shadow of doubt I can say, in truth, that for the Early Church, including the Church at the time of the apostles, Scripture was not their only source of instruction, guidance, and/or knowledge of the Gospel. The Church needed the Bible, hence the Catholic Church compiled it, but the Bible needed the Church as well to validate its claims and to safeguard and interpret its teachings. You are a lawyer, Thomas think about this rationally. The law needs the government for interpretation, for enforcement, and for safeguarding. It is not functional if we simply say “here is the law, now obey it.” Man is weak and fallible, not all men would interpret it the same way, not all would be willing to obey it fully, many would attempt to abuse it and manipulate it, as they attempt to do even with the established structure of government. So it is with Scripture and the Church, they are interdependent and necessarily function as one, not two separate forces. Interestingly enough, we know that the Early Church viewed the Old Testament as divinely inspired. The apostles themselves when referring to Scripture were strictly speaking about the Old Testament. The idea that the New Testament or the Memoirs of the Apostles(as Justin Martyr referred to the them) were Scripture isn’t found until much later, possibly the 2nd century. We know that St. Justin Martyr attested to their divine inspiration in his Exhortation to the Greeks written between the years 260 and 302 A.D. The writings of the 1st Century Early Church Fathers focused on the spreading of the Gospel and the structure and authority of the Church, correction the Catholic Church…
12. I stand on what I stated before.
- One other thought here in terms of whether the Word of God would have been faithfully interpreted and handed down without the compilation of the Bible by the Catholic Church, you do realize that there were other books that some held as being written by the Apostles right? At the time of the compilation there were additional books supposedly written by St. Peter, St. Thomas, St. Andrew, St. John, St. James the Less, and others. The Church would not have had to specifically condemn these books if some believers had not been using them and handing them down. Yet once the Catholic Church did condemn them they ceased to be considered of value by believers.
13. The church that was established was the entire body of believers not the hierarchical organized Catholic Church.
- The Church is the Body of Christ, and yes, the Body of Christ is made up of all those who believe but according to Scripture or the Early Church Fathers that Body of believers does have a hierarchy with an office of authority. St. Paul wrote: “Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account” Hebrews 13:17. In Acts we read: “And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. And when they came to him, he said to them:….Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians, to feed the church of the Lord which he obtained with his own blood” Acts 20:17-18, 28. Then again: “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor; especially those who labor in preaching and teaching; for the scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading on the grain,’ and ‘The laborer deserves his wages” 1 Timothy 5:17-18. Both St. Peter and St. Paul speak of the office of bishop as an “office” that would not end with them but rather would continue on in the Church (1 Timothy 3:1-7; 1 Peter 5:1-5). St. Paul goes on to confirm this in his letter to Titus as well (Titus 1:5-9). The Early Church Fathers likewise repeatedly confirmed the handing on of the office of bishop, presbyter, and deacon, in accordance with the Tradition of the Apostles as found in their letters and in their oral preaching.
14. Jesus could change his own rules, the Apostles could not. Even if the rest of the analysis is incorrect, which I do not believe is the case, the fact remains that the Apostles realized they needed to pick someone who had been with Jesus from the beginning. And as for your comment “we need the Catholic Church to guide us in "true" biblical interpretation”, why is that so they can interpret the more preposterous notion of the Immaculate Conception from five words in the Bible?
- My initial response to you first statement is why not? Did Jesus give to Peter and the other apostles authority to bind and loose both in heaven and on earth or didn’t He? In reference to your analysis of Matthias and Paul’s apostleship see my article: Was Matthias Really An Apostle? In response to your last comment I will say yes, so that the Church can interpret doctrines like the Immaculate Conception which is supported by Sacred Scripture for the verse says what it says. However, the Church has been successful in protecting the Catholic faithful from the presumptuous doctrine of Sola Scriptura, a doctrine not supported by Sacred Scripture.
15. I don’t have the time to research or go into this. If you want a history lesson then look it up in a history book. Are you stating that the reformers really had no reason to be in disagreement with the Church?
- Martin Luther and the other reformers were excommunicated by the Catholic Church for their heretical doctrinal errors namely: the denial of free will, the assertion of the complete corruption of human nature by Original Sin, the doctrine of justification by faith alone, their onslaughts on all authority, both ecclesiastical and civil, and the doctrine of Scripture as the sole authority in religious matters. I say sole here because that was Luther’s claim, that in matters of faith Scripture was one’s sole authority. These were all teachings contrary to Scripture and that had not been believed by the Church down through the ages.
16. I figured that would be your response.
- The truth is the truth.
17. As I stated numerous times, these writings were inspired not because the Catholic Church stated they were around 400 AD, but because they are. If they had never been assembled they still would individually be viewed as sacred. The Bible was assembled more for convenience than for any other purpose, to have the various holy writings in one place. So to answer your question point blank is the assembly of the Scriptures Biblical? No it is not in the Bible, but this doesn’t really get us anywhere does it? The only thing it does is intimate that we should rip the Bible apart into each separate book.
- But this does beg the question – How do you know the Bible, more importantly, the New Testament, is divinely inspired? Your final comment is the wrong conclusion. Since the Bible doesn’t mandate its compilation we have to begin to ask ourselves the obvious question – Does the Church have divinely ordained authority to declare such things as necessary, things like the compilation of the Bible?
18. I think I answered this in an early post. I never stated that the teachings of the early church were contradictory, only superfluous. As I think I have shown, and clearly it is shown in the Bible that the early church was constantly being thrown off track, during the time of the apostles. Why is it so hard to believe that they would be ever more slightly thrown off track, and introduce doctrines the apostles never taught, once the apostles were gone?
- Again, all the more reason to have an established hierarchy of bishops led by the Pope to insure the Gospel is uncompromised.
19. I will email them to you when I get a chance, but we have already talked about a least one. Sola Scriptura.
- I look forward to receiving them. I don’t agree on Sola Scriptura, for the fathers of the Reformation did claim that on matters of faith the Bible was the sole source of authority, thus the title Luther chose - Sola Scriptura. All the denominations of Protestantism can claim that they only mean “ultimate,” yet the reality of the matter is that it is the “sole source” that they are willing to rely on for truth in matters of faith. Is it not?
The bottom line is this. The Church has introduced teachings that are clearly not in the Bible. Whether they are grounded in or based on Scripture is up for debate.
- But before we can get to this point the question that still begs to be answered is “How do we know that the Bible is a reliable source of truth?” You’ve already admitted that the various books that make up the Bible never mandated its compilation. We historically know that the oldest copies of any of the books are from the mid-2nd century at best. So what guarantee do we have that the Bible is indeed true and divinely inspired?
You believe that the Catholic Church was instituted by Christ. I believe that the church referred to in Scripture was not the organized Catholic Church, but it refers to the whole body of believers that followed the teachings of the Apostles.
- I addressed this early in this post. The Church is the Body of Christ, all believers make up the Body of Christ, but the Church does have a hierarchy as Scripture shows.
You believe that the Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ and was given the Holy Spirit to protect it from false teaching. I believe that the body of believers was given the Holy Spirit so that as long as they remained in the Spirit and followed the teachings of the Apostles they would not fall into false teachings.
- But the Apostles themselves attest to the fact that they wrote and taught so that believers would know how they ought to behave in the Church (1 Timothy 3:14-15). They would go on to “write” that believers should be submissive to their leaders and to the leaders that they should be faithful in passing on the Gospel. They never said to each there own. They spoke of a body that was one.
You believe that the Church was granted the Holy Spirit and thus the actions of the leadership in teaching of faith and morals are infallible. I believe that the Church is twisting a bit of authority given only to the Apostles to justify teaching whatever doctrines it wants to.
- The Magisterium of the Catholic Church is infallible in it teaching of matters that pertain to faith and morals. How has the Catholic Church compromised the Gospel message in its teaching on matters of faith or morals?
You believe that the Church’s Tradition flows out of this infallibility, the Holy Spirit’s Protection, and the Church’s interpretation of the Scripture as well as what the early Church fathers believed and wrote. I believe that these Traditions are extra pieces of lent picked up over time, that do not mean anything, and that they are not what the Apostles were referring to as tradition in the Scripture. They only serve at best to distract us from the true Gospel proclaimed by the Apostles.
- Tradition means the teachings and teaching authority of Jesus and, derivatively, the Apostles. These have been handed down and entrusted to the Church (which means to its official teachers, the bishops in union with the Pope). It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this Tradition as well as the Bible (Lk 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (Jn 14:16). – Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating Your statement of what your belief is nullifies the Bible because it was out of that Tradition that the Bible was compiled and passed down. Lent is something of no value but the Tradition of the Catholic Church gave Protestantism a Bible to claim was the ultimate source of authority…is this really of no value?
For example the various doctrines of Mary. I was explaining these doctrines to my wife, and her first reaction wasn’t “That’s not true!” nor was it “That’s not in the Bible!” it was “Who cares?”. These doctrines are interesting bits of trivia to be debated about by theologians in their spare time. They are not doctrines that should be the focal point of the Church. I am sorry but Mary was a very minor figure in the minds of the writers of Scripture.
- Careful, your talking about Jesus’ mother. We learn much about how we are to live from the example of Mary, we learn much of what it means to be a true follower of her Son from her example. To say that the writers of Scripture felt she played a minor role is untrue. Read the first two chapters of Luke’s Gospel again, or the need all of the Evangelist felt to make the point that it was Mary who stood at the foot of the Cross, that it was Mary who promoted the first miracle of Jesus’ public ministry. Minor role? Hardly. And yet to this day she continues to say to the Church what she said the servers then – “Do whatever He tells you” – John 2:5
The Church seems to get so caught up on defending these dumb doctrines that they loss sight on the what the Apostles believed was the central and all important figure. Christ. Throughout Scripture it is Christ and Him crucified. Christ, his sacrifice. Christ, his teachings and example. Christ, his redemptive work. Christ. Christ. Christ. Christ. When the Church losses it’s focus on Christ it does so at its own peril.
- To answer the obvious error in this train of thought I will quote John Henry Cardinal Newman again:
It is customary with those who are not Catholics to fancy that the honors we pay to her interfere with the supreme worship which we pay to him; that in Catholic teaching she eclipses him. But this is the very reverse of the truth. For if Mary’s glory is so very great, how cannot his be greater still who is the Lord and God of Mary? He is infinitely above his Mother; and all that grace which filled her is but the overflowings and superfluities of his incomprehensible sanctity. And history teaches us the same lesson. Look at the Protestant countries which threw off all devotion to her three centuries ago, under the notion that to pull her from their thoughts would be exalting the praises of her Son. Has the consequence really followed from their profane conduct towards her? Just the reverse – the countries, Germany, Switzerland, England, which so acted, have in great measure ceased to worship him, and have given up their belief in his divinity; while the Catholic Church, wherever she is to be found, adores Christ, as true God and true Man, as firmly as ever she did, and strange indeed would it be if it ever happened otherwise. - Mystical Rose, pg. 123
Who cares whether or not Mary was a perpetual virgin?
- Apparently the Body of Christ, those who believed in Jesus Christ and His Gospel, did since they continuously testified to Mary’s perpetual virginity. My question would be who would want to claim that she wasn’t always a virgin if the Church down through the ages has always held the belief that she was?
Does this fact one way or the other really have any impact on me or my relationship with my Creator?
- Yes, it does for if you are adhering to a compromised and incomplete Christian faith that isn’t in complete union with the Church established by Christ, you miss out on so much in terms of truth, grace, and unity.
Who cares whether or not the body and wine at communion really turns into His literal flesh and blood?
- Jesus did and so did the Apostles and those that followed them down through the ages. The belief in the Eucharist and the fact that it is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is the foundation of our faith, for in the Eucharist we receive our Lord and Savior into our very beings. I can’t imagine why any Christian would not want to partake in this great feast of grace and mercy or at least honestly look into this claim. This doctrine alone has led many Protestants home to the Catholic Church.
Does this change the fact that we are commanded to remember Him and what He did for us?
- Again, Jesus clearly said that it changes everything (John 6:53-56).
These traditions do nothing more than get us off our focus, what is suppose to be our first love. Christ. Read through the Scripture, it is absolutely clear that to the Apostles, Christ was the focus.
- Amen. Christ is the focus and all Catholic doctrines lift our hearts and minds to the glorious power of our Lord and Savior and His wonderful love for us. These “traditions” are biblical as well, let’s not forget that.
The Church has introduced extra beliefs that are not central nor are they necessary. They have taken what the Apostles and Christ taught and laid on top of it regulations, ceremony and doctrines, that do nothing, but take away the main focus of the Church’s existence. Doesn’t any of this sound familiar? It would seem we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.
- It does sound familiar…it sounds like Luther. Look where his doctrines have taken Protestantism – disunity in churches and in doctrine, most don’t even hold to all of his teachings any more. Jesus didn’t pray that we would be united just in a basic set of doctrines but rather as He and Father are (John 17:20-23).
Tradition is nothing new, and the reliance of our beliefs on tradition is nothing new. Moses through divine revelation established the Law and commissioned a Priesthood to guard that Law. What did that Priesthood do? It so warped what was written with centuries of tradition, that it made the Law itself a joke. Isn’t this exactly what Christ got so angry about in His day? “Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, ‘Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash there hand before they eat! Jesus replied “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? . . . Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.”” Matthew 15:1-9 See also Mark 7:6-8 It is interesting that Christ and even the Apostles never quoted from the tradition of their day, and Christ usually held those traditions in contempt. But they repeatedly quoted the written Scripture.
- And yet Jesus went on to say to the people in reference to the Scribes and the Pharisees: “The Scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach but do not practice” (Matt 23:2-3). Here he clearly acknowledges their teaching authority over the people of Israel. He only condemns their actions. You are correct in saying that Tradition is nothing new, but it most certainly is valuable.
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
"And yet to this day she continues to say to the Church what she said the servers then – “Do whatever He tells you” – John 2:5"
That is your reference for Biblical support of Marian doctrine?
How does that imply that you are to seek her when praying?
"“The Scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach but do not practice” (Matt 23:2-3). Here he clearly acknowledges their teaching authority over the people of Israel. He only condemns their actions. You are correct in saying that Tradition is nothing new, but it most certainly is valuable."
The Scribes taught the law, which was written. However, they were hypocrites and they didn't practice what they taught. The point is that whatever tradition a church may have...it must be in agreement with Scripture. If you feel that the Catholic church is 100% in agreement with Scripture in all of its teachings, then so be it. Scripture dictates the actions of a church. It is not the other way around, it is not Scripture and tradition on equal grounds. Anything pertaining to the church of God...must be in agreement with Scripture. The point Thomas was making is the following....no one in the Bible ever praised Mary or even asked Mary to pray to Jesus for them. So how is that tradition of Mary scriptural? John 2:5 is your reference? I can show you where Jesus said that the is only one mediator between man and God. I can't find instructions though on praying to Mary or to saints. Some tradition in the Catholic church while not scriptural does not affect the integrity of scripture or its doctrine. For example, the sign of the cross after prayers. Thats tradition...not Biblical, not necessary, yet it does not go against Scripture.
However, Mary and communion of saints as someone else posted here before, does leave the door open for idolatry. SOrry to inform you that a lot of Catholics do focus more on Mary than they do on Christ. That is not a good thing.
I believe that God gave warnings in Scripture not to follow traditions of men. If God didn't write it or inspire it to be written...then why do it? Don't you think that if an item was important to God that He would have written it down? I think he would have.
Scripture has shown even the best of men to be flawed. David...flawed...Moses flawed...Solomon...flawed...Peter...flawed...etc.
Why would God not leave a measuring stick for them?
He did, and that measuring stick is the Bible. We could go on and on...and you still might not be convinced because of your faith...and I respect that. Either way, one of us is going to be wrong in the end. God is revealing himself to us more so than ever in these days. The truth will be made evident.
God bless
Posted by: Jeff at July 10, 2004 06:03 PMJeff,
I guess you decided not to read this entire article, if you had you would have noticed that I asked for all readers to refrain from posting comments as this was a discussion between Thomas and I. You could have emailed your comments to the two of us as I suggested.
I'll answer your objections here but in the future please forward any objections and/or answers to Thomas and/or myself.
1) This is not the only Scripture verse that supports the Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church.
2) Read this entire post, a lot of what you are attempting to say here has already been addressed adequately.
3) As the answer to objection 2.
Now some questions for you.
1) How do you know that the Bible is a reliable source of truth?
2) How do you know that the Bible is a divinely inspired book?
3) Did Jesus or the Apostles mandate the compilation (the assembling) of the Bible?
4) Who compiled the Bible and why?
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
I read the entire article. Thomas said that he would not be posting for a while since it is exhausting. I'll repost his last post.
" We already seem to be repeating ourselves. I apologize that I will be unable to further this discussion, but I think that I need to get back what’s important in my life, my walk with God, my family, and my other commitments. I may after a spell come back and answer your other questions, but for now I am exhausted. One last question, and this is out of my own curiosity more than anything else, How do you deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church's claim to be the one true church through Apostlic succession?"
That is why I posted. I thought the debate was over.
1) This is not the only Scripture verse that supports the Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church.
I have read the article and other articles...I have yet to see anyone show how scripturally the Bible shows the TRADITION of praying to or with Mary as being valid or necessary. WHERE IN THE BIBLE IS THERE REFERENCE TO ANYONE ASKING MARY TO PRAY FOR THEM?
1) How do you know that the Bible is a reliable source of truth?
How do you know that the RCC is a reliable source of truth?
2) How do you know that the Bible is a divinely inspired book? Again how do you know that the RCC is the divinely inspired way of God?
You see Joe, we can go into history on how the Bible was assembled. It really doesn't matter, the fact is that the content of the Scriptures were written. Jesus held men accountable for Scriptures. The Holy Scriptures may not have been organized in a single collection, but they existed. So without rehashing the long debate on history of the Bible and what have you, I believe the Bible to be God's Word because no matter what, God's will shall be done. I can analyze all the historical facts, all the archeological facts and any other fact, the bottom line is that is my choice, my free will that was given by God, to accept it as true or untrue. Ultimately it becomes a faith issue. Isn't that ironic. Now, ask yourself the same question...how do you know that the church you are in now, is the reliable source of truth you believe it to be?
God Bless
PS
If Thomas is still engaging in a discussion with you, I will gladly step aside and no longer post.
Jeff,
Thomas and I are still discussing these matters. But since you seem to want to engage in this discussion I think it might be worthwhile, unless Thomas would prefer we keep it between the two of us. But until he lets us know we can discuss this.
I asked the questions first so just answer my questions. This shouldn't be too hard since all matters of faith for the Protestant can be found in Scripture right? Answer my questions, then I'll answer yours.
In Christ,
Joe
Jeff,
One more thing, please follow the form used thus far. Refer to the question's number when answering. I think we both know that your attempted explanation is seriously weak - I just believe it to be true...so it is. I could say the say to your questions. So really think about these things. When I do answer I will not be so relative, it won't just be a matter of "well that's what I believe is true so it is."
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
"I think we both know that your attempted explanation is seriously weak - I just believe it to be true...so it is."
That is your opinion. I honestly disagree with your opinion.
"I could say the say to your questions. So really think about these things. When I do answer I will not be so relative, it won't just be a matter of "well that's what I believe is true so it is."
Joe, we have discussed history and archealogical facts and the Scriptures themselves. The bottom line is simple...taking all the facts that we have discussed, the content of Scripture, I have two choices. Either to accept that the Bible is of God or not. If I refuse the Bible to be the truth, then so be it.
However since I believe the Bible to be the Word of God, I believe what it says about God. The Bible clearly shows that no matter what, God's will is always done. Not because "I say so" or "believe it to be" do I find the Bible to be a reliable source of truth, but because of who God says He is in the Bible.
I am aware of church history, I am aware of archeological studies. However if we were to go into history once again, I would get carpal tunnel's.
I asked you the same question because ultimately you will be faced with the very same question you are asking me.
Be blessed
Jeff,
This isn't a matter of opinion, rather a matter of truth. Belief that relies on opinion is relativism, which is ultimately the end result of Protestantism, each person has a right to interpret Scripture in determining what is true and what isn't. There is no total unity in doctrine or belief as we see in the world today.
But since you want to say that you know the Bible is true because you have chosen to believe that, I will ask you to at least give honest answers to these two questions and the sub-questions under the second.
1) Do the New Testament authors claim to be writing under divine inspiration?
2) Did Jesus or the Apostles mandate the compilation of the Bible? If yes, where? If no, then how do you know that the Catholic Church acted correctly in doing so?
Simple questions....
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
1) Do the New Testament authors claim to be writing under divine inspiration?
John in Revelations 1:10 On the Lords day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, which said "WRITE on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches:..."
Yes Joe, that is John claiming that he wrote under divine inspiration. He was in the Spirit. Again in 1 Jn1:3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We WRITE this to make our joy complete.
Yes, John is inspired by the joy through Christ, that he WRITES!!!
IN 2 Pet3:1 Dear friends, this now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking.
Here you can see that Peter is writing, but if you read the first 2 chapters, you will see that he is inspired by God. 2 Pet1:3 His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.
In 2 Pet 3:15
Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also WROTE you with the wisdom that God gave him.
Peter is claiming that the NT author PAUL was inspired to WRITE by God.
Luke 1:3
Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus.
Goodness of God inspired the writings. I could go on...but in short...a resounding YES to question #1.
2) Did Jesus or the Apostles mandate the compilation of the Bible? If yes, where? If no, then how do you know that the Catholic Church acted correctly in doing so?
Did Jesus specify that all Scripture be bought together in one organized collection. No. But so what, the inspired writings still remain as such, God breathed. Jesus' work was not altered in any shape whatsoever. Making the Word of God accessible to all is doing God's will. Jesus taught the Word to the Apostles, the Apostles spread the word throughout the church and the church is to continue sharing the gospel. The formation of the Bible is God's will because it is a vehicle through which the Word of God is spread and taught. SO yes, the early church did well in putting the Bible together. As I have said before...God's will has always been done.
As to which books are inspired or not, that is another issue we can get to if you would like, but after we get past this point.
Now....
1.How do you know that the RCC is a reliable source of truth?
Be blessed
Jeff,
1) Your reply to question one does not confirm your "resounding yes". 1 Jn 1:3; 2 Pet 3:1; 2 Pet 3:15; and Luke 1:3 do not make the claim of divine inspiration (that it is God who wrote through the author)
- 1 Jn 1:3 simply says they wrote to make their joy complete not that everything they wrote was the inspired Word of God.
- 2 Pet 3:1 says that that they wrote as a reminder to stimulate wholesome thinking not that everything they wrote was the inspired Word of God.
- 2 Pet 3:15 says, in truth, "according to the wisdom given him". You must be using the New International Version of the Bible. This sentence in the Greek does not contain the word "Oeou" or any other form of this word which is translated "God". In the King James, the Rheims, the New American Standard, the New American, the Amplified, and the New Revised Standard the assumption isn't made. Therefore this verse is simply saying that Paul wrote with wisdom but it does not make the claim that Paul was writing the divinely inspired Word of God.
- Luke 1:3 simply says that it seemed good to him that he write the Gospel down not that he had been inspired to write down the divine Word of God.
John's claim in Revelations stands alone in that he was ordered to write what he saw in a vision given to him by God. So, yes John attests to the fact that the book of Revelations is a divinely inspired book, but he does not make this claim for the other books he wrote.
2) The compilation of the Bible didn't matter because the books and letters were God breathed anyway? We've established above, that only one book in the New Testament makes this claim. So how do you reach this conclusion? We know that there were other letters and gospels that the Early Church had in their possession and handed down. It was the Catholic Church that decided what books and letters would be included and which wouldn't. Do you deny this? So you've answered the question correctly in admitting that the Bible was not mandated by Jesus or the Apostles. So now please justify your reason as to why that is irrelavent. Keep in mind it took the Church almost 400 years to reach the decision to compile the Bible.
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
All of these books in some way shape or form confess testifying about Jesus.
My friend, they were inspired by Jesus to write. How can you deny this?
"Luke 1:3 simply says that it seemed good to him that he write the Gospel down not that he had been inspired to write down the divine Word of God."
What was it that made the author feel that it was good to write? What did he investigate? It was the accounts of Christ and His teachings. Which after further investigation moved the author to write. God inspired this author to write.
"1 Jn 1:3 simply says they wrote to make their joy complete not that everything they wrote was the inspired Word of God"
Again Joe, joy moved this author to write. Where does his joy come from? Could it be God himself? Peter in 1 Peter1:8 refers to this as INEXPRESSIBLE JOY. This joy obviously is from God almighty and therefore makes it divine. Since it did inspire John to write that makes it divine inspiration.
"2 Pet 3:15 says, in truth, "according to the wisdom given him". You must be using the New International Version of the Bible. This sentence in the Greek does not contain the word "Oeou" or any other form of this word which is translated "God". In the King James, the Rheims, the New American Standard, the New American, the Amplified, and the New Revised Standard the assumption isn't made. Therefore this verse is simply saying that Paul wrote with wisdom but it does not make the claim that Paul was writing the divinely inspired Word of God."
Again...who gave Paul his wisdom? Lets look at the facts. Paul refers to himself as a slave to Christ. Paul is teaching about Christ. Paul testifies about Christ. Now, who gave Paul this wisdom? God himself. If you want to say I am wrong for believing God to provide men with wisdom....so be it.
So once again with a resounding yes, yes the authors of the Bible clearly show that their inspiration to write was from the God, Christ or the Spirit.
"For God GIVES WISDOM and KNOWLEDGE and JOY to a man who is good in His sight;" (Ecclesiastes 2:26)
The only way that the authors confess to being inspired by God is not clear is if you do not believe that God gives men their wisdom, joy, and that God is good.
As for your last question...once again, look at the previous answer.
Be blessed
Posted by: Jeff at July 12, 2004 10:30 AMJoe,
Let’s break this down a little bit more:
When we say that the Bible is a divinely inspired book we are making several claims.
1. That the Scripture as we now have it is in the same form that it was when it was written.
2. That the individuals that claim authorship did in fact write it.
3. That the authors believed what they had written was inspired by God.
4. That the authors were in fact correct in their assumption that their writings were inspired by God.
1. I believe that we stand on the backs of the early church who meticulously copied the scriptures down generation after generation. From the time of the original manuscript until the earliest know copies in existence today. If these copies had not been made the New Testament would not have existed. Have you ever stopped to think why the copies were made and why so it was done so meticulously so that even the manuscripts that we have now from several different sources and in different areas have little if no discrepancies between them? It was done because the early church firmly believed from the beginning that these writings were inspired by God. It would have been unthinkable to change or correct the Truth/Word that came directly from God. If you compare the manuscripts that we presently have to any other writings at the time it is nothing short of phenomenal the accuracy of the copies to one another.
2. We also owe much to the early church for preserving the knowledge about each book written and that the individuals who claimed authorship actually did write them. They did much of the investigation into each of the books of the Bible to deter