Envoy Magazine had a good article entitled "Baptists at the Council of Nicea." You can read it here http://www.envoymagazine.com/
bac...coverstory.html. Nice work Dave!
Steve: The folks at the usual reformed blog hotspots LOVE IT when this article (Baptists at Nicea?) is referenced.
Dave, these quotes from Athanasius should be permalinked, or at least posted once an hour.
I especially love the part about Mary's perpetual virginity.
Like much of the fathers, once in a while you can get a quote or two, taken out of context and they can sound like a Proto-Protestant, but when you compile them together, the evidence weighs heavily to the Catholic side.
I especialy see this when reading the Faith of the Early Fathers, volume 1, as compiled by Jurgens - of course, Bishop/Pope/Magisterium/Propeht/Dr. White says the Jurgens version is corrupted, as it's translations are too Catholic - but I digress.
You left out so much of other things that Athanasius wrote that it is not an even treatment of Athanasius.
For example:
Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture. . . .
On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia. (De Synodis) 6
Here,
(Part 2, On the History of Arian Opinions, On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, 23)
Athanasius defines what he means by "the tradition", "the faith". It is purely a Trinitarian doctrinal statement, affirming monotheism, one creator God over all against Gnostics, and the Deity of Christ against the Arians, and the Deity of the Holy Spirit against the Tropici.
Your use of To Serapion 1:28 is not positive toward the Roman Catholic position, but supports the protestant position; that "the faith", "the preaching", "the rule of faith", "the tradition" are not things added later by the Roman Church, but the Trinitarian doctrinal statements, fleshed out in the Apostles Creed, the Nicean-Constantinoplian, and Chalcedon and Athanasian Creeds.
We believe conformably to the evangelical and apostolical tradition, in One God, the Father Almighty, the Framer, and Maker, and Provider of the Universe, from whom are all things.
Continued . . .
And in One Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, Only-begotten God (Joh. i. 18.), by whom are all things, who was begotten before all ages from the Father, God from God, whole from whole, sole from sole perfect from perfect, King from King, Lord from Lord, Living Word, Living Wisdom, true Light, Way, Truth, Resurrection, Shepherd, Door, both unalterable and unchangeable; exact Image of the Godhead, Essence, Will, Power and Glory of the Father; the first born of every creature, who was in the beginning with God, God the Word, as it is written in the Gospel, ‘and the Word was God’ (John i. 1); by whom all things were made, and in whom all things consist; who in the last days descended from above, and was born of a Virgin according to the Scriptures, and was made Man, Mediator between God and man, and Apostle of our faith, and Prince of life, as He says, ‘I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me’ (John vi. 38.); who suffered for us and rose again on the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of the Father, and is coming again with glory and power, to judge quick and dead.
And in the Holy Ghost, who is given to those who believe for comfort, and sanctification, and initiation, as also our Lord Jesus Christ enjoined His disciples, saying, ‘Go ye, teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost’ (Matt. xxviii. 19); namely of a Father who is truly Father, and a Son who is truly Son, and of the Holy Ghost who is truly Holy Ghost, the names not being given without meaning or effect, but denoting accurately the peculiar subsistence, rank, and glory of each that is named, so that they are three in subsistence, and in agreement one.
Holding then this faith, and holding it in the presence of God and Christ, from beginning to end, we anathematize every heretical heterodoxy. And if any teaches, beside the sound and right faith of the Scriptures, that time, or season, or age either is or has been before the generation of the Son, be he anathema. Or if any one says, that the Son is a creature as one of the creatures, or an offspring as one of the offsprings, or a work as one of the works, and not the aforesaid articles one after another, as the divine Scriptures have delivered, or if he teaches or preaches beside what we received, be he anathema. For all that has been delivered in the divine Scriptures, whether by Prophets or Apostles, do we truly and reverentially both believe and follow .
Part 2, History of Arian Opinions, On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, 23
The Primacy of Rome quote you have does not prove anything toward a primacy or pope or jurisdictional primacy.
The mother of God quotes are fine, and all they mean is that Jesus was always God from conception, Mary was the God-bearer. It was not meant to mean anything more.
Athanasius seems to go over-board and seems to beleive in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Given his exaltation of celebacy and the desert fathers; that is understandable at that time in history. It is one of those areas that some of the great men of history erred on. His belief in that does not take away from his commitment of Scripture as the final infallible rule, he was just mistaken on that issue and inconsistent; his emotions for Mary probably running away with him.
When Athanasius formally writes about the list of books in the OT and the NT, (Festal Letter 39)he does not include most of those that you and Machuta argue for. He includes Baruch as part of Jeremiah, true; and he leaves out Esther, yes, that was true. He was not infallible; and including Baruch and possibly parts of those sections of Daniel (Susanna, etc.) was because of the Greek manuscripts available to him.
Overall, you don't have much, except his belief in the Perpetual virginity of Mary.
He was "catholic" with a little c, not Roman Catholic. "catholic" with a little c of the first 5 centuries is by definition "proto-Protestant", for Luther and Calvin sought to restore the church to the church of the first 5 centuries, the Scriptures and the Ecumenical councils; Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon.
Pure and unstained virgin does not necessarily mean "sinless";
the faith and works quotes are fully compatible with historic protestantism, that it is faith alone that justifies at the beginning of conversion, but that faith does not stay alone, it results in good works, fruit, changes, more repentance, godliness, and holiness. All of those verses are understood as the results and fruits of true faith, not additional legalistic conditions to keep God's grace and love in our lives.
The Eucharist, yes, seems to be the time when they started going overboard on that also; of course it does not mean anything close to transubstantiation. Another example of the beginning things that begin to creep in slowly and later corrupt the church and doctrine and the gospel.
Obviously, they wanted people to treat the symbols of the Lord's body and blood with respect and reverence and with a worshipful attitude, and not be cavalier and flippant as one comes to a table for ordinary bread and wine like in eating supper, etc.; so the prayers and seriousness of eating and drinking the Lord's supper are fully biblical. That is fully consistent also with a more doctrinal Protestant church.
So, Athanasius was a catholic, not Roman Catholic, yes, a "proto-Protestant".
I was surprised you did not include "baptismal regeneration" in your list for Athanasius.
Yes, he and most others, if not all, seems to teach that. That is probably the very first step over the line and not letting proper exegesis of the text limit the interpretation. Baptism was an outward testimony of an internal reality, based on profession of repentance and faith and after going through the catechism classes. To understand it as performing something on the recipient leads to all sorts of false doctrines, eventually becoming the ex opere operato false doctrine.
Athanasius seems to go over-board and seems to beleive in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Given his exaltation of celebacy and the desert fathers; that is understandable at that time in history. It is one of those areas that some of the great men of history erred on. His belief in that does not take away from his commitment of Scripture as the final infallible rule, he was just mistaken on that issue and inconsistent; his emotions for Mary probably running away with him
The Eucharist, yes, seems to be the time when they started going overboard on that also;
Ken, God should have made you an Early Church Father and you could have saved Christendom form the foolish interpretations of those early Spirit filled Fathers. According top you, Ken, your interpretations are right and that is that.
Ken
Show me in scripture where it teaches Mary: Perpetual Virginity? St. Athanasius clearly taught this teaching. This clearly show you misunderstand St. Athanasius.
Jerry,
So what if he did? A lot of people who have held to sola scriptura have believed that (as RCs love to mention with the Reformers) just as a lot of people under Rome in history did not believe it before the definition - I really have no problem with people who believe either way and I bet most Protestants don't - the problem is when a church starts demanding assent to it as part of the gospel nearly 2000 years after Christ and claiming those who don't assent are endangering their salvation.
Scripture does not teach Mary as a Perpetual Virgin. Matthew 1:18 and 1:25 and all the passages on Jesus' brothers and sisters (Matthew 13:55-56 and parallels) clearly refute this. Athanasius was wrong on that, but that is forgiveable; he was not infallible. He was right on many other things.
Thats my point. You quote St. Athanasius saying this --> for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things) like he was teaching doctrine of sola scriptura. I simpleing saying you misunderstand St. Athanasius because Mary: Perpetual Virginity is scared Tradition and you make him out to be Bible alone guy.
Ken:
I think you're missing the point. What he Fr. Barbour is arguing for is a particular cast of mind found in the fathers that is not present in Evangelicalism today. In Nicea one finds an understanding of church, sacrament, and tradition that is comfortably Catholic. You seem to concede this by your going through Athanasias and offering just-so stories in order to get out of difficulties with his thought. Remember, the views that Athanasias held--on Mary, the Eucharist, the church, etc--were UNCONTROVERSIAL. They were believed and practiced everywhere, in East and West. This is why Orthodoxy retains these beliefs, even though it parted with the West long before the Reformation. If the Latin Church's doctrines were merely a matter of "making stuff up," then one would find in the East radically different theology. But you don't.
And in keeping with my mentor (wink)'s comments is the Pontificator's First Law:
"When Orthodoxy and Catholicism agree, Protestantism loses."
When Orthodoxy and Protestantism agree, Roman Catholicism looses.
Orthodoxy historically rejected the Roman bishop's claim that he was "bishop over all other bishops" in a jurisdictional sense. This goes all the way back to Cyprian, Firmillian, bishop of Caesaria, totaling 86 bishops of N. Africa and Asia Minor and the east in their disagreement with Stephen, bishop of Rome, on the issue of re-baptising heretics and schismatics. They wrote:
"For no one sets himself up as bishop of bishops . . . " Seventh Council of Carthage, 256 AD
Scripture does not teach Mary as a Perpetual Virgin.
You say St Athanasius was a hard core SS advocate, well, for the sake of argument. let's say he was what you claim. St Athanasius read the same scriputres you did and came to a diferent conclusion regarding Mary's perpetual virginity. I will accept his understanding of scriputre, not yours.
Jerry,
I understand your point now. It seems that Athanasius just was not aware of this contradiction, or inconsistency. This happens a lot in the early writers. He was inconsistent with his own views, if indeed he really held to that view of PVM. I have not seem any discussion of the issue of Mary's Perpetual virginity verses the Bible's authority as having the final say in the matter in Athanasius. He is usually defending the Bible as the final authority against Arians and other anit-Trinitarian heresies.
Tertullian, earlier, clearly defended the virgin birth of Christ, but clearly stated that they had a normal marriage after Jesus was born, and so Tertullian interprets Matthew 1:18, and 1:25 and 13:55-56 correctly. (Against Marcion, 4:19, On the Flesh of Christ, 7) This is one reason the RCC does not like Tertullian, and will quickly excoriate him as that "Montantist heretic".
Jerome writes around 200 years later than Tertullian and gives the first full defense of Mary's Perpetual Virginity in history. Writers of the early period, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Ignatius, all affirm the Virgin birth, but none of them say anything about her perpetual virginity. The doctrine was not around, because it was not apostolic and not biblical at all. Jerome’s argument is all goofy inventions, speculations, mental gymnastics avoiding the clear Scriptures. Jerome, bless his heart, got it right on the Apocrypha, but wrong on Mary's PV.
It seems strange that in all the writings of Athanasius in the standard set of the church fathers, that "Ever-Virgin" in Athanasius is used only once in all his writings in that set (Against the Arians, Discourse II, 70; NPNF 2; Vol. IV, 386-387) It is a small three letter prefix, “Aei”. Could it be that this is a later interpolation? He mentions the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Christ many other times; why does Athanasius not always write, “ever-Virgin” if PVM was his conviction? I have no way to prove that this was an interpolation, I am only mentioning that there is some doubt that this was really Athanasius' belief. Some scholars assert that De Virginitate, ("On Virginity") is not really from the pen of Athanasius himself; for the style and content is just not like his other works.
Here is the note:
“(55) De Virginitate. (Migne xxviii. 251). Pronounced dubious by Montf., spurious by Gwatkin, genuine by Eichhorn (ubi supr., pp. 27, sqq.), who rightly lays stress on the early stage of feminine asceticism which is implied. But I incline to agree with Mr. Gwatkin as to its claims to come from Athanasius. ‘Three hypostases’ are laid down in a way incompatible with Athanasius’ way of speaking in later life.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/
...04.v.iii.i.html
But, I don't know much about that issue, those works are not available to us; and we have to rely on the RC quote books for them (ie, Gambero); they are not in the standard Early Church fathers sets.
I did not say Athanasius was a hard core Sola Scriptura advocate; I would not put it that way. I would say that he was very close to the concept articulated by Luther and Calvin. He was close to it given the context of the times in which he lived.
People are fallible and make mistakes. The way to keep the church on tract is to constantly be going back to the Scriptures to see if these things are so.
Matthew 1:18, 1:25;12:46-50; 13:55-56; and Tertullian and the fact that Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus all defend the Virgin Birth of Christ, but not the "ever-virginity" of Mary, etc. speaks louder than the later tradition of exalting virginity over marriage as a higher way of holiness.
Paul said it was better, only if you have the gift of singleness, (I Cor. 7:7-9; 7:32-35, 38.) and Jesus (Matthew 19:11) also by saying, "not all men can accept this" implies the same principle that singleness and celibacy are a charismata, a spiritual gift from God.
Paul said it was better, only if you have the gift of singleness, (I Cor. 7:7-9; 7:32-35, 38.) and Jesus (Matthew 19:11) also by saying, "not all men can accept this" implies the same principle that singleness and celibacy are a charismata, a spiritual gift from God.
But that agrees with the perennial Christian teaching: celibacy is a spiritual gift that God gives to some, not all. The usual course is marriage, but the extraordinary, higher, more spiritually exacting way is celibacy. If that were not so, then celibacy would not be a spiritual gift, but would be just something that some people can opt for instead of marriage.
Anyway, as for Scripture and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, I think Mary's own words, "How can this be, since I do not have sexual relations," are pretty clear on the point. Mary didn't believe in the Stork, you know -- she knew that to have babies, you need a man and a woman. She wasn't asking Gabriel for a lesson in the birds and the bees. If she were expecting that soon she would be engaging in sexual relations, she'd have never asked that question. But because she was vowed to perpetual virginity and knew she would never engage in sexual relations, she had to wonder how she could become the mother of the Messiah. So, since the Scriptures speak of Mary's avowed virginity, and since the Scriptures never once refer to Mary having sex and never say that the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were His uterine sublings, I conclude that the Scriptures teach the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity, whcih in any case has been dogmatically defined by the Church, the pillar and ground of the truth. If you can't trust Scripture and you can't trust the Church, what can you trust?
Ken,
Your reply concerning Pontificator's First Law is an evasion. If you don't understand it, perhaps you ought to spend some time reading his site.
Luke 1:34
How can this be since I am not knowing a man?
ou yinosko
Present active indicative
I am not knowing a man (now)
If it was mean to be interpreted the way you say, it should have been, "How can this be, since I will not ever know a man? or "since I have made a vow of virginity and will never have sexual relations, even in marriage", etc.
The present tense, not the future tense is used for "knowing" (sexually)
The present tense makes it clear that Mary understands the angel that she will concieve immediately; and the context shows this for when she goes to visit Elizabeth, Mary is pregnant with the Messiah.
Sound, biblical exegesis rules out your man made traditions and dogmas.
So I have a question somewhat related to how this thread is going with the PV and how some early christians believed it, some didn't, some were completely silent - given development of doctrine that both Protestants and RC's believe in (though disagree on its nature) - how does that affect our view of heresy/orthodoxy? I think RCs/Protestants both agree the Trinitarianism/Christology encapsulated by the councils is one of the benchmarks for orthodoxy. But as RC blogger David Waltz showed - http://www.fairlds.org/Mormonism...01/
m20100b.html - quoting Protestant scholar RPC Hanson - "Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology".
So does this mean everyone before Nicea was a heretic or that once the doctrine has been articulated, people are obligated to believe from that day forward? I suspect most will lean towards the latter but something still just doesn't seem right about it if revelation is closed. Obviously one can see how this applies to virtually every point of doctrine outside the barest essentials which I would think even the earliest Christians would have to believe (Christ is Lord,the Resurrection,sin,faith and grace for salvation, etc - note I'm not putting sola fide or the Western Anselmian satisfaction view of the atonement/penal substitution as I would consider them developments (that I would say do have traces throughout history though) so I'm not just going after RC dogma here). One could posit that they might have really believed in the developed doctrine but just couldn't articulate it, but that doesn't fly with statements that are in direct opposition to the eventual development. Perhaps if they were presented with it in the terminology it was defined with and had time to reflect on it, they would come to affirm it but that is completely speculative. Or one can go the alternate route saying well this issue must not be important enough to define orthodoxy given the wildly differing viewpoints in history/tradition (but then that directly impacts Christology). Certainly the Apostles' understanding of issues developed (but they were also receiving direct public revelation which both Protestants/RCs agree has ended), and I'm not sure they had a full-orbed exhaustive view of the Trinity (or other "later" doctrines) as defined in the councils; actually I would lean to saying they probably didn't - and I don't think most RCs believe Paul was walking around teaching indulgences and eucharistic adoration.
And if RCs say they would simply submit to the church's authority (which I think is essentially what the RC view of the "unanimous consent of the fathers" boils down to) that simply avoids the question at hand as many would say the papacy/nature of the church's authority was a development as well. Thoughts?
Ken,
One other question for you on the PVM. If the "brothers and sisters" are Jesus' true siblings, why does Jesus hand over custody of Mary to the beloved disciple at the Crucifixion? In your exegesis, why did he not trust his "brothers" to take care of her, as that would have been the custom of the time? Thanks
ou yinosko
Present active indicative
I am not knowing a man (now)
If it was mean to be interpreted the way you say, it should have been, "How can this be, since I will not ever know a man? or "since I have made a vow of virginity and will never have sexual relations, even in marriage", etc.
No, it shouldn't have been those at all, because what Mary actually said is synonymous with those options you suggest.
The present tense, not the future tense is used for "knowing" (sexually)
Exactly! It's present active indicative, meaning it's happening then, is ongoing, and there's no suggestion that it will stop.
The present tense makes it clear that Mary understands the angel that she will concieve immediately;
And the present active indicative suggests that Mary understands that she is someone who does not engage in sexual relations. She couldn't know when or how she would conceive, since all she was told is that she would conceive and bear the Messiah, not when or how she would conceive.
and the context shows this for when she goes to visit Elizabeth, Mary is pregnant with the Messiah.
The context shows that she conceived immediatelty, or nearly immediately, not that she understood she would conceive immediately. The text only shows Gabriel saying what would happen -- we never actually see it happening to Mary, since the Incarnation is a mystery incapable of adequate description. (Just as we never actually see the moment of the Resurrection in the Gospels, for the Resurrection is another ineffable mystery that was witnessed by no human being on earth.)
So, in you words, Ken, sound biblical exegesis rules out your man made traditions and dogmas. Mary didn't understand that she would conceive immediately, for had she understood that, she wouldn't have asked how she could possibly give birth to the Messiah -- she would have known how it would be possible -- she would have known that God would work a miracle. Again, if Mary were not vowed to perpetual virginity, she wouldn't have asked how it would be possible for her to conceive, as she would know -- seeing that she was already betrothed to Joseph -- that she would in due course consummate her marriage and conceive children. The only possible interpretation is the one that the Church of God has always believed and taught -- Mary is pertually a virgin.
"Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology".
No, not every single theologian: Irenaeus, Origen, and Gregory Thaumaturgus didn't express Subordinationism, but taught the coequality and coeternality of the Father and the Son. If that statement were true, then Athanasius' doctrine would be unquestionably an innovation and unprecedented, which is not at all the case.
James White proves my point in spades about Protestants claiming Athanasius as one of their own:
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?i...php?
itemid=2426
He makes this remarkable "head in the sand" statement:
"There is this really big problem about Athanasius' decades long rejection of council after council, bishop after bishop, in standing for the full and uncompromised deity of Christ. The thinking person realizes that this mindset just does not fit well with modern Roman Catholic theories of papal primacy and the like."
Of course these were heretical eastern councils (not ecumenical councils), which is the whole point. I have written about Rome's sterling record during the Arian crisis:
"Arianism held that Jesus was created by the Father. In trinitarian Christianity, Christ and the Holy Spirit are both equal to, uncreated, and co-eternal with God the Father. Arius (c.256-336), the heresiarch, was based in Alexandria and died in Constantinople. In a Council at Antioch in 341, the majority of 97 Eastern bishops subscribed to a form of semi-Arianism, whereas in a Council at Rome in the same year, under Pope Julius I, the trinitarian St. Athanasius was vindicated by over 50 Italian bishops. The western-dominated Council of Sardica (Sofia) in 343 again upheld Athanasius' orthodoxy, whereas the eastern Council of Sirmium in 351 espoused Arianism, which in turn was rejected by the western Councils of Arles (353) and Milan (355)."
I noted in the paper itself how Athanasius fled to Rome and was continually supported by the popes. That hardly sounds like some alleged rejection of Roman primacy! What universe does White live in, anyway?
But hey, give Bishop White credit: he managed to barrel his way through an entire post without rank personal insults against me. I think that must be some kind of record for him . . . 
James White demonstrated and proved your citation of Festal 2:6 is wrong in the way you interpret Athanasius. Reading the whole context, from 2:4 to 2:7 teaches us a lot, that Athanasius does not promote extra-Biblical traditions here.
I just read the Athanasius quote IN CONTEXT and I see exactly what you mean, Ken...it is not only NOT supporting the authority of "traditions" it's supporting the authority of scripture over any traditionis!
Dave, did you actually read the context that the quote came from before posting?
If you would like to comment in response to this could you kindly deal with my comment about the context of the quote and nothing else please?
thanks,
bob
Whoops...I also meant to add...please deal with the "content" of my post.
I read White's commentary, and it is, as I suspected, anachronistic. It's not clear how JW can say that when Athanasius says "apostolic tradition" he means "Scriptures." Clearly, it includes that, for over that question there is no doubt. But the issue is whether Athanasius meant exclusively "the Scritpures," and if that was synonymous with "canon." As Evangelical Craig Allert shows convincingly in A HIGH VIEW OF SCRIPTURE (Baker 2007), "Scripture" was larger than what eventually became the canon and that the church's duty is to guard and protect the Rule of Faith, which includes but is not reducible to the Scriptures and what eventually become the canon (that the Church officially recognized).
Canon formation included a theological component: did the text correspond to the Rule of Faith? Allert clearly shows that in is book. But if that is the case, then Scripture has to be read as it has been understood by the church in its practices and its liturgy. This is why word studies of isolated terms in the Biblical text are so perverse. Read, for example, JW's Roman Catholic Controversy. He spends several pages on the Reformed view of justification by isolating the Greek word for "reckon" and finds an elaborate theology that, lo and behold, establishes the Reformed view. But that's not the way you do historical theology. You have to approach the church and its teachings with humility and reverence, remembering that nobody prior to Luther and Calvin--and prior to Dun Scotus, Biel, and Ockham, for that matter--would have read Paul in that way. Why? Because it's not what was received from the Rule of Faith, and, if you read the Council of Orange's canons (that condemned Pelagianism), infusion, and not imputuation, is the way the Church understood grace.
Please, do yourselves a favor and read the fathers as teachable children rather than as angry polemicists looking to vindicate the Prodigal Calvin.
Thomas,
Nicely said...now can you explain why Athanasius was actually making the opposite point that Dave was implying? That's what I was asking...I don't know if your answer was directed partially at me or not...
bob
I have responded to White, more than doubling the size of the original paper.
Dave,
Can you point me to the response?
Does it deal ***directly*** and ***specifically*** with that particular quote and it's context?
Our old pal, the safely anonymous "Saint and Sinner" has chimed in too:
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Roman Catholic Apologists and Anachronism
One of the biggest problems with Roman Catholic apologists throughout the centuries has been their use of anachronism. For example, RC apologists will frequently read their dogma of the immaculate conception back into the words of the church fathers when they call Mary 'immaculate'. They will read their dogma of purgatory into the words of Tertullian when, in reality, he was speaking of refrigerium interim. Oh, and let's not forget the Donation of Constantine or the Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore.
Well, James White has pointed out one such anachronism committed by our local RC apologist, Dave Armstrong.
I've also found an anachronism in DA's The Catholic Verses pertaining to Augustine's view of the 'Real Presence' in the Eucharist. Hopefully, when I finish my series on Apologetics, I'll get around to finishing my series on DA's book.
http://contra-gentes.blogspot.co...ogists-
and.html
Can you point me to the response?
Refresh your browser and consult the original Athanasius post.
Does it deal ***directly*** and ***specifically*** with that particular quote and it's context?
Yep, and more. As usual, I thoroughly debunk White's "argument" and almost certainly he will ignore what I have done and go to mocking and silliness. There is always a first, though, and he might actually grow a spine and defend his opinions past the first round.
Theology Web has also started up a thread on this dispute: sure to be yet another storehouse of asinine potshots and miscomprehensions (though Catholics are allowed to speak there too):
http://www.theologyweb.com/campu...ad.php?
t=106430
Am I missing something here? How does Festal Letter #2 support the notion of sola scriptura? Upon reading the entire letter, and not just the parts quoted by Messr. White, it seems to me that the purpose of the letter was to demonstrate that the Scriptures gave the Church the authority to declare Easter as a holiday to be celebrated and to remonstrate against those who would not celebrate the day as a feast day because it the Scriptures did not proclaim it as such?
As I see it, St. Athanasius was stating here that the Church had the authority and the power to bind believers to follow its teachings consistent with the powers that were given to the apostles. Not only are the followers of Jesus to be the hearers of His commandments, but doers of them.
How does one find sola scriptura in that?
Hi Paul,
Got any fun and illuminating materials to send along to Steve and I yet? I tried to go to a library today but they are all closed till Jan. 2nd.
White has issued his stock-in-trade quick, mocking dismissal sans argument, added to the original post. This man is a farce and disgrace to Internet (and all Protestant-Catholic) discourse:
Quick Update:
Mr. Armstrong expanded his comments when people in his comboxes saw exactly what Athanasius is actually saying in this passage, and how Armstrong has misused the text. And as if to simply prove my point for me, Dave includes a wonderfully anachronistic comment like this: "All the text prior to these words pose no problem whatsoever for Catholics, who accept material sufficiency of Scripture." Yes, folks, I'm sure such categories as "formal vs. material sufficiency" were right in the forefront of Athanasius' thinking! It is clear Armstrong cannot even see his own shortcomings in the handling of the text even when the entire context is posted before his very eyes, the problem that makes his church history book as valuable for Roman Catholics as Hislop's Two Babylons should be for Protestants. Neither source has anything of value to add to the discussion.
Dave,
I read your incredibly wordy update and I don't see how it supports your position...is there a way to put in in plain English without all of the overblown rhetoric?
I'm just curious about the one quote I keep harping on...not the whole paper...
How does this one quote support your position?
It would seem that you've taken it out of context...I'm not commenting on anything else...sola scriptura or anything...just the fact that you used the quote to support a point that it wasn't able to.
Is that possible? Remember...keep it simple...I'm dumb...
I read your incredibly wordy update and I don't see how it supports your position...is there a way to put in in plain English without all of the overblown rhetoric?
Probably not, Robert. Patristic studies presupposes a certain degree of intellectual and academic preparation that many do not have and probably won't ever have. There's no shame in that -- in those cases, just rely on dependable authorities such as the Catholic Church.
I'm just curious about the one quote I keep harping on...not the whole paper...
Dave included several quotes from St. Athanasius, but you've never harped on any quote in particular. Please specify which quote you are having a problem with.
It would seem that you've taken it out of context...
It's obvious to anyone who reads St. Athanasius' writings that he wasn't remotely a "proto-Protestant." The point of Dave's posting was to place St. Athanasius' statements in the whole context of who he was as a Catholic Christian of the 4th century A.D., so there was no lifting out of context; quite the opposite.
It's obvious to anyone who reads St. Athanasius' writings that he wasn't remotely a "proto-Protestant."
Correction: I should say, who reads them honestly, fairly, and humbly.
Jordan,
thanks for the reply; I"ll reply to your replies one by one ok?
1.) It's not the actual quote I have a problem following...it's Daves response...he never adressed my original question about how THAT PARTICLULAR QUOTE was taken out of context.
2.) Please read my previous posts for the answer.
3.) Not talking about proto anything...just a quote used out of context...
shall we deal diirectly with the question that I asked...several posts ago?
Hint: The answer should start like this: "The context of this particular quote is this...because of this found in line..x and line x..."
That's what I'm asking...
Gee..maybe I'm not so dumb after all...
I did my best, Robert. If it is not to your liking, then there is nothing else I can do. My work is not for you if you can't comprehend my arguments. I devoted several hours of my time yesterday carefully replying to White's critique, only to get back from him the usual mockery and breezy dismissal with no argument. Yet you don't criticize that; you go after my answer as if it were no answer at all.
If you can't see my point, then you never will. I can't dumb it down. I've never done that and I ain't about to start now. My writing presupposes a basic theological interest and education. The issues, as Jordan noted, are subtle and a bit sophisticated in the first place. So if you're as "dumb" as you yourself claim, then maybe that is where the problem lies, not in my analysis, style, wordiness, etc., etc.
Robert, I can only assume you're talking about the wider context of the quote from St. Athanasius' Festal Letter 2:6, though I suppose you might be referring to some other quote.
You allege the quote was lifted out of context and used to support something that the context contradicts. Dave provided the context and showed that the quote was not prooftexted at all, but you complained that his explanation was too wordy for your limited intellectual capacity. That's unfortunate, but it is by no means apparent how your lack of intellectual ability is Dave's problem. Really, if you can't comprehend what St. Athanasius said, and what Dave said in explaining his position, then you really should have the humility to accept what is proper for your state in life.
But I suspect that you do have the intellectual gifts to understand what Dave said. What may be lacking is patience, perseverance, and an open mind. So I would encourage you to read what Dave said, intently and with persistence. You will see that it is as Dave contends -- St. Athanasius held not just to that which is explicitly taught in Scripture, but also said we must "hold such opinions as the saints have handed down," that is, the extrabiblical Apostolic Traditions which supply the correct interpretations of Holy Scripture.
I added a brief section on baptismal regeneration. James White thinks "sacramentalism" (including baptismal regeneration) is man-centered and opposed to grace altogether. So who -- again -- does Athanasius resemble more closely: White, with his purely symbolic baptism that is no sacrament at all, or Catholicism, with its doctrine of baptismal regeneration?
Dave,
I guess I am too feeble to "get" your response..sorry for the limitation.
The only thing that makes me feel just a little bit better is that Dr. White is evidently just as dumb as me...he couldn't see your point either...
Have a good day....I'm done.
What interesting to me how much Early Church Fathers are interwine in Catholic Church. They are loved and widely read. We have Churches name after Early Church Fathers around the world even whith some of there bones fragments.
They are quoted in homilies at Mass and uses as Confirmation names. For example my Confirmation name is St. Irenaeus. They are taught in Catholic high schools,Catholic university and Catholic seminaires. If you read the Early Church Fathers as a whole you will see they are Catholic thats why they are so loved and interwine in they Catholic Faith.
The only thing that makes me feel just a little bit better is that Dr. White is evidently just as dumb as me...he couldn't see your point either...
I don't understand why this would make you feel better, Robert.
Dave, I'm 'tizzidale' over @ theologyweb. I've linked to your response, but one of the owners (the Darth Xena poster) has received permission to post in full both White and Swan's blog posts. 'Twould be grand if I could do the same.
So here's a question, for Dave or any other Catholic:
James White said that the "apostolic traditions" handed down through the ages are essentially Scripture, or the teachings found therein. Dave disagreed and said that it includes both Biblical and extra-Biblical teachings. To justify this he quoted Paul where he commanded the Thessalonians to keep the traditions he taught them, "whether by word or our epistle." Using this verse he opines that there must have been some traditions that were given and kept merely by word and not epistle (i.e. in Scripture), thereby making the two, at least to some extent, mutually exclusive. So assuming that Dave's reasoning here is sound, this is the question: What tradition was taught by Paul by word only and not epistle, that the Roman Catholic Church now maintains? It can't be the Papacy or Petrine Primacy, since Dave offers 50 different Bible verses/passages that he believes supports that, nor can it be the Real Presence of the Eucharist, since the Catholic interpretation of John 6 makes it quite clear that, if they're right, that teaching is in fact in Scripture. It also wouldn't be Church authority or apostolic succession, since Dave goes out of his way to demonstrate the Biblical passages he believes support those doctrines, too. It's not Purgatory or prayers for the dead, since again, those are in the Bible too...according to Dave. The Marian doctrines are also at least implied in Scripture according to Dave, so it would be a stretch to claim one of those, plus the fact that I doubt Mary had died yet when Paul wrote that, so it couldn't be the Assumption.
So...what is it? What is one doctrine taught by Paul through word only and not epistle, which the Roman Catholic Church maintains today?
Nick T.
So...what is it? What is one doctrine taught by Paul through word only and not epistle, which the Roman Catholic Church maintains today?
How about the content of the Old Testament canon?
Really, if St. Athanasius believed only "traditions" found in Scripture, then how did St. Athanasius know which books belong in the New Testament?
Nick,
Dave has already supplied the answer to that question with the words of St. Athanasius; "And as I have delivered to you traditions, hold them fast.' That means, indeed, that we should think not otherwise than as the teacher has delivered." IOW, not just that the Scriptures were delivered but how they are to be understood. So the interpretation of Scripture is an Apostolic Tradition.
Sure, Rusty, feel free (and thanks!). Anyone can cite anything of mine on the Internet, as long as there is full attribution and source information.
This is something outside of scripture and it is BINDING on the Christian mind. The canon of the Bible. Tradition tells you what is the meaing of the verse not just unwriten tradition. Infant Baptism I think is another unwriten tradition like the Canon of the Bible. Whats funny your whole foundation that you stand on is not even in the Bible sola scriptura. How can Paul be teaching sola scriptura to Timothy when Oral revelation is still going on? When Paul wrote to Timothy 2 Tim 3:14 17 the LITERAL meaing ( primary meaning ) was not teaching sola scriptura. Did Timothy after reading letter writen by Paul to him start practicing sola scriptura?? Where is the so called nebulous defination of sola scriptura in the Bible?
I meant Where is the so called nebulous definition of sola scrptura in the Bible not defination...lol Sorry
God Bless
There was once a pastor that had a church and he was pastor of that church for 7 years and he kept a journal of life in the church.
One day this pastor died and a few months later a another pastor came to be the new pastor. This new pastor one day sat down and read his journal about life in the church and said by reading this journal alone I dont think this pastor taught Infant Baptism. So this new pastor ask the congregation about this and they said he always taught Infant Baptism.
"How about the content of the Old Testament canon?"
Where did Paul preach this in word but not in writing? On the contrary, Paul writes of and cites Old Testament Scripture all the time in his writings.
"Really, if St. Athanasius believed only "traditions" found in Scripture, then how did St. Athanasius know which books belong in the New Testament?"
The New Testament is part of Scripture, obviously. Thus, if following traditions of Scripture, he would abide by its content.
sorry, the last comment was by Nick T. I'm really trying to remember to sign, promise!
Catholics writes of and cites Old Testament and New Testament Scripture all the time in there writings and dont believe in sola scriptura.
Exactly, Jerry. That is the fact that made me do the half-funny but serious paper:
If the Church Fathers Can Be Remarkably Transformed Into "Sola Scriptura Protestants" by "Bible Prooftexts", Why Not Me, Too?!!
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-
amazingly.html
Paul Hofner wrote:
“. . . it seems to me that the purpose of the letter was to demonstrate that the Scriptures gave the Church the authority to declare Easter as a holiday to be celebrated and to remonstrate against those who would not celebrate the day as a feast day because it the Scriptures did not proclaim it as such?”
Nowhere does he say anything about Church authority of proclaim Easter as a holiday, rather he seems to imply that the celebration Easter was a custom passed down, and was apostolic.
Is Athanasius claiming that the celebration of Easter, the resurrection is apostolic; or is he talking about the joy, peace, and godly behavior (“conversation”)and power of the gospel as apostolic? As against those that are not celebrating, naming new feasts, and days of mourning, etc.
In his second Festal letter, it does seem that Athanasius is trying to ground the celebration of Easter with joy on past custom and assert that the celebration of the resurrection with joy is part of the apostolic deposit. He is using Scriptural passages on behavior, the peace and joy of the Christian life in celebrating the resurrection of Christ, to show how the celebration of Easter proclaims the power of the gospel in behavior and order, against those who refuse to celebrate the feast and continue with mourning, sadness, and asceticism; and implies that they have no peace or joy.
This is still a far cry from actually saying that the early church has authority to proclaim something as apostolic. This does not mean one can take something centuries later and claim it is apostolic, when there is not proof of this.
So, if Athanasius' point is that everyone should celebrate the feast of Easter with joy, as opposed to those who don’t celebrate it and continue mourning with sadness and lack of peace; and in following this tradition, the people demonstrate godly behavior, (joy), where does the RCC make that a dogmatic ruling?
Is the celebration of Easter a de fide dogma of the RCC? Of Orthodoxy?
Was not the celebration of Easter one of the first disputes that the early church had? (Referred to by Eusebius, citing Irenaeus and his dispute with Pope Victor, around 190 AD?) Did not Irenaeus say that the churches have diversity of opinion on this, and this is a secondary issue and should not be something someone should make a issue of doctrinal or dogmatic importance on?
Doesn’t that fact show that there is such a thing as as “secondary issues”? Supposed apostolic traditions or customs that cannot be proven; such as Basils list of unwritten traditions? ( On the Spirit, 66) None of which, are proclaimed or practiced as dogmatic apostolic traditions by the RCC?
Does this not show the importance of going back to Scripture to determine what is apostolic or not?
This, the claim that celebrating Easter comes from traditions of the apostles, seems to be on the same level as Basil's list of customs (facing east, baptizing three times, anointing oil, etc. On the Spirit, 66) -- there is nothing in these "traditions" that are anything close to things like what the later Roman Catholic Church sought to proclaim as dogma and claimed as apostolic:
Mary's Sinlessness
Immaculate Conception (1854 dogma)
Papal Infallibility (1870 dogma)
Mary's Bodily Assumption into Heaven (1950 dogma)
Most of the time, Athanasius identifies the saints and fathers as Biblical writers like Solomon and Luke. He even uses Luke as one who wrote down the testimonies of eyewitnesses in Luke 1:1-4 to make his point. Therefore blessed Luke reproves the inventions of men, and hands down the narrations of the saints, saying in the beginning of the Gospel, ‘Since many have presumed to write narrations of those events of which we are assured, as those who from the beginning were witnesses and ministers of the Word have delivered to us; it hath seemed good to me also, who have adhered to them all from the first, to write correctly in order to thee, O excellent Theophilus, that thou mayest know the truth concerning the things in which thou hast been instructed.” ( Luke i. 1-4) For as each of the saints has received, that they impart without alteration, for the confirmation of the doctrine of the mysteries. Of these the (divine) word would have us disciples, and these should of right be our teachers, and to them only is it necessary to give heed, for of them only is ‘the word faithful and worthy of all acceptation.’ ( 1 Tim. i. 15) these not being disciples because they heard from others, but being eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, that which they had heard from Him have they handed down.”
Athanasius speaks of Scripture most of the time, and seems to take verses that speak of the passing down of Scriptural truths, and then uses this to apply to the celebration of Easter and godly behavior, joy, and order. This still does not show that he is teaching apostolic succession of the office of bishop. He is merely suggesting that the celebration of Easter with joy was passed down from apostolic times. He is not saying anywhere that the church has authority to proclaim a feast or fast, etc. He is also is not saying that the church can later then declare something as “tradition”, just because it says it is tradition from the apostles”. (Like the dogmas of Trent, 1854, 1870, 1950) He is not saying the church is infallible either.
Most of the traditions were written down in Scripture, as Athanasius makes his point by quoting Scripture, especially Luke 1:1-4. He also emphasizes the proclamation of the gospel, and the demonstration of the gospel with holy and godly lives, behavior. (joy and peace, “conversation” (behavior), I Timothy 4:12, ets. Those that were not handed down in Scripture, those that the early church assumed were apostolic are not the same ones that the later Roman Catholic Church claims are apostolic.
"Catholics writes of and cites Old Testament and New Testament Scripture all the time in there writings and dont believe in sola scriptura."
Sure, but that doesn't explain the incessant usage of Scripture in the context of a discussion about apostolic tradition. Catholics look at such passages, see the phrase "apostolic tradition," and automatically assume that the author means something like "the canon of Scripture," or "Catholic liturgy," even though neither one of those issues is being addressed in context. They have to insert those meanings into the text in spite of the fact that all the author does when talking about apostolic tradition is quote Scripture after Scripture. Again, it's not that Catholics never use Scripture or quote Scripture in their writings, its that the context of Athanasius' writings here do not warrant Catholic assumptions about what apostolic tradition is, in light of what is being discussed.
Nick T.
Athanasius clearly distinguished between Canonical Scripture and the Apocrypha:
Notice the word, "alone" -- a pre-Reformation form of Sola Scriptura, for his time, 367 AD. (not the full blown articulation of it; but something very close.)
Yes, I realize that he included Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah as "one book" with Jeremiah. (and Lamentations) and that he left out Esther.
Still, he numbered the canon the same as the Jews did, 22. see verse 4 of Festal letter 39.
From his Festal Letter 39 in 367 AD:
6. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me' Matt. xxii. 29; John v. 39..’
7. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon , but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.
Dave wrote:
"Athanasius accepts books of the Bible (Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit) that White rejects as "extrabiblical" and no Scripture at all. Therefore, Athanasius is calling inspired what White thinks is an evil tradition of men. Hard to get more poles apart than that!"
Athanasius does use these books sometimes, but in 367 AD in Festal letter 39, he clearly distinquishes between them and the Canonical Scriptures, as cited above.
inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power. [the citation I used in my book]
Here is apostolic succession.
I thought "apostolic succession" was that the authority of the apostles as bishops was passed down by ordination of bishops as leaders of the churches, not just any apostolic tradition being passed down.
This is at most,( if it is), claiming the passing down of unwritten apostolic tradition "opinions of the saints" (even though mostly he sites Solomon and Luke and Paul and writers of Scripture as "the saints and fathers"), not apostolic succession in the office of bishop.
Of course, just quoting those verses, 2 Thess. 2:15 and 3:6 and I Cor. 11:2 do not prove there are other things the apostles taught that they did not write down. Obviously, if Paul at that time is preaching in Thessalonika, but only wrote 2 letters to the Thessalonians, then the contents of the gospel that he preached that are necessary for salvation and ministry(2 Tim. 2:17- that the man of God may be equipped for every good deed") for the saints (Jude 3) was contained in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, etc. (and all the other Canonical books). It is a safe principle to assume that everything that was necessary for salvation and teaching and ministry and doctrine was written down, since he says "All Scripture is God-breathed" and profitable for doctrine (teaching), rebuke, correction, training in righteousness; etc. because when it is written down, the people later have something to refer to. Peter makes this very point in 2 Peter 1:12-21; 3:1 The unwritten traditions that Paul preached in Thessalonika were written in Romans and Galatians and Ephesians, etc. Since "the faith was "delivered once for all to the saints" (Jude 3); there is nothing else that is infallible, inerrant, God-breathed, authoritative, binding, and apostolic.
Athanasius does use these books sometimes, but in 367 AD in Festal letter 39, he clearly distinquishes between them and the Canonical Scriptures, as cited above.
Someone, somewhere has written about this. He made the case that the term canonical does not have the same meaning as it did back during the early church. When then term canonical was used for scripture, it referred to scripture that was read during the canon of the mass and thus was called canonical. Some churches read different scriputres during the mass so for some churches certain scriptuwes were regarded as canonical while others were not simply based on whether they were used during the canon of the mass or not. Some scriptures were considered inspired but not canonical in this sense. Could this be what Athanasius was talking about. I wish I could remeber where I read this piece.
Nick T said: Where did Paul preach this in word but not in writing?
Nowhere -- in writing. That's the whole point. If you could find a writing of St. Paul's where he preached it in word but not in writing, then it wouldn't preached in word but not in writing, by definition. And yet the Church from the 1st century A.D. onwards regarded the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, as we see in St. Clement and Pseudo-Barnabas and St. Polycarp, etc., etc. They got their beliefs from the Apostles, so St. Paul (whose words in Rom. 2 are very, very close to what we find in the Book of Wisdom, for examole) must have held to that Apostle Tradition, as he was an Apostle. Q.E.D.
On the contrary, Paul writes of and cites Old Testament Scripture all the time in his writings.
Nict T: Sure, but that doesn't explain the incessant usage of Scripture in the context of a discussion about apostolic tradition.
Why wouldn't it? Catholic believe Apostolic Tradition and Scripture agree, and that Scripture is itself an Apostolic Tradition. So why wouldn't St. Athanasius quote Scripture but also refer to the need to accept extrabiblical tradition?
Catholics look at such passages, see the phrase "apostolic tradition," and automatically assume that the author means something like "the canon of Scripture," or "Catholic liturgy," even though neither one of those issues is being addressed in context.
No we don't. The context of St. Athanasius' references to extrabiblical tradition make clear which traditions he is referring to -- namely, doctrines regarding matters of the Paschal festival, or the doctrine of the Trinity.
They have to insert those meanings into the text in spite of the fact that all the author does when talking about apostolic tradition is quote Scripture after Scripture.
No, he doesn't do that. Re-read his Festal Letter -- he's not just quoting scripture.
Again, it's not that Catholics never use Scripture or quote Scripture in their writings, its that the context of Athanasius' writings here do not warrant Catholic assumptions about what apostolic tradition is, in light of what is being discussed.
Well, you have not accurately stated what Catholic assumptions are. It's obvious that St. Athanasius didn't believe in Sola Scriptura, and that he maintained the obligatory character of extrabiblical tradition handed down from the Apostles. St. Athanasius' words speak for themselves -- if you read them without crossing your eyes.
Ken Temple said: Athanasius does use these books sometimes, but in 367 AD in Festal letter 39, he clearly distinquishes between them and the Canonical Scriptures, as cited above.
Yes, he distinguishes between them, but he still speaks much, much more highly of them than most Protestants do. He clearly regarded them as holy, inspired, and scriptural -- but not "canonical." So, in theory he distinguished between them, in practice he did not. Much as St. Jerome, in fact.
In any case, what St. Athanasius' beliefs regarding the biblical canon, he clearly didn't think the limits of the canon were fixed by the words of scripture -- because the Bible doesn't tell us which books belong in the Bible. That comes to us from Apostolic Tradition, not from Scripture. (If you disagree with me, then show me the verses that list the books and chapters that are divinely inspired. Good luck with that.)
Jordan,
"Nowhere -- in writing. That's the whole point. If you could find a writing of St. Paul's where he preached it in word but not in writing, then it wouldn't preached in word but not in writing, by definition."
Well FINALLY someone gets it! That IS the whole point, as you said, and it's what makes it so difficult (if not impossible) to establish this claim by Catholics that unwritten traditions have been passed on for some 2,000 years. They cannot prove that Paul said something that they believe, but just didn't happen to write it down. And as someone already said, in the Catholic system, oral and written Tradition (Scripture) work together....however, since we have no oral traditions from the Apostles that can be identified which aren't in Scripture, Protestants make the logical conclusion that everything we need to know, including the early oral traditions, is IN SCRIPTURE.
"And yet the Church from the 1st century A.D. onwards regarded the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, as we see in St. Clement and Pseudo-Barnabas and St. Polycarp, etc., etc. They got their beliefs from the Apostles, so St. Paul (whose words in Rom. 2 are very, very close to what we find in the Book of Wisdom, for examole) must have held to that Apostle Tradition, as he was an Apostle. "
First of all, you and I both know that there was disagreement among Christians as to whether or not the Apocrypha were canonical or not. There WAS significant agreement on the canon of the New Testament, something Catholics seem hesitant to admit.
As for Romans 2, off of Dave's site here I see two alledged parallels between Wisdom and Romans 2:
"5a) Romans 2:11
For God shows no partiality.
5b) Sirach 35:12
Do not offer him a bribe, for he will not accept it; and do not trust to an unrighteous sacrifice; for the Lord is the judge, and with him is no partiality."
Wow. God is just. Amazing. Incredible that I never saw the obvious borrowing there.
"6a) Romans 2:15
They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them
6b) Wisdom 17:11
For wickedness is a cowardly thing, condemned by its own testimony; distressed by conscience, it has always exaggerated the difficulties. "
They both use the word "conscience." Wow. Again, how I missed this practically unmistakable parallel is just inexcusable.
If my responses seem a bit over-the-top with their tongue-in-cheek attitude, I'm sorry, but I really think you're grasping for something that's just not there. If you'd like to go into further detail or highlight some other portion of Romans 2 that you think is a quotation or paraphrase or Wisdom, please do so.
God Bless and Happy New Year!
Nick T.
Nick T., Acts 20:35 shows St. Paul accessing an oral teaching of Jesus that was never recorded anywhere in the four Gospels. So the Scriptures do show that there was an Oral Tradition as to the teachings of Jesus outside of the Gospels at least. There are other references to the teachings of Jesus not found in the NT in the writings of the ECF's as well.
Again, the main purpose of the Apostolic Tradition is to aid in the interpretation of Scripture. It is not a substitute for the Scriptures, nor does it supersede them. Apostolic Tradition does not ever contradict the Scriptures. Likewise there is nothing in the Scriptures that contradict Apostolic Tradition. Apostolic Tradition is to ensure that the Scriptures are interpreted correctly.
Ken, as far as your statement about the Easter controversy. There was no controversy about the fact that Easter was to be celebrated as a holiday, the issue between the different sees was over when it was to be celebrated. It was a primary issue that Easter was to be celebrated; it was a secondary issue over when it was to be celebrated. The fact that the dispute was submitted to the bishop of Rome (read Pope) to be decided shows Apostolic Tradition in action.
Hi Paul,
"Nick T., Acts 20:35 shows St. Paul accessing an oral teaching of Jesus that was never recorded anywhere in the four Gospels. So the Scriptures do show that there was an Oral Tradition as to the teachings of Jesus outside of the Gospels at least."
But again, sir, it's now in the Bible. Meaning, as I said before, that any important oral traditions that were once passed around in Apostolic times, have ultimately been encapsulated in Scripture. Thank you for making my point for me.
"Again, the main purpose of the Apostolic Tradition is to aid in the interpretation of Scripture. It is not a substitute for the Scriptures, nor does it supersede them. Apostolic Tradition does not ever contradict the Scriptures. Likewise there is nothing in the Scriptures that contradict Apostolic Tradition. Apostolic Tradition is to ensure that the Scriptures are interpreted correctly."
Again, this explanation makes it seem like Catholics are talking out of both sides of their collective mouth. According to Dave, only something like 6 Bible verses are officially defined by the Catholic Church. He wrote an entire paper defending the idea that there is immense latitude available within the Catholic exegetical position. So are you really going to tell me that "Apostolic Tradition" means "The definition of 6 Bible verses"?
In addition, you say that Tradition is not a substitute for Scripture and does not supercede it, but in a de facto sense, that IS exactly what it does, when you use it as an interpretational filter. Whenever Protestants present you with Scripture, your ultimate response is, "Well, Tradition says this, so Scripture can't mean that." In that case, you have elevated Tradition above Scripture.
Nick T.
Nick T.
Nick T said : Well FINALLY someone gets it!
It's not likely that I'm the first Catholic to understand that oral Apostolic Traditions were not written in the New Testament.
That IS the whole point, as you said, and it's what makes it so difficult (if not impossible) to establish this claim by Catholics that unwritten traditions have been passed on for some 2,000 years.
It's not that difficult. All we have to do is look at the writings of the early Fathers and the later Fathers and Doctors of the Church. We find therein ample testimony of all of the chief Catholic doctrinal pillars, right back to the late 1st century A.D. In the late first century A.D. and the second century we find Christians attest to belief in Apostolic Tradition. We also find scriptural witnesses to the belief in binding apostolic tradition, and scriptural witnesses that testify to the fact that not everything Christians believe and do is expressly laid out in Scripture. We then conclude, in holy faith, that the beliefs and practices attests by the Fathers were, as the Fathers said, inherited by them from the Apostles, who taught us to listen to the Church, the pillar and ground of the truth.
however, since we have no oral traditions from the Apostles that can be identified which aren't in Scripture, Protestants make the logical conclusion that everything we need to know, including the early oral traditions, is IN SCRIPTURE.
No, that's not logical at all, it's a non sequitur. Just because binding oral traditions were delivered orally rather than in writing, it does not necessarily follow that they were delivered in the form of inspired Scripture after first being delivered orally. Just because Scripture does not contradict exrabiblical Apostolic Tradition, it doesn't follow that Scripture explicitly attests to the entire content of Apostolic Tradition. So the Protestant leap of logic to Sola Scriptura is unwarranted -- and indeed, only heretics believed in the Sola Scriptura in the early centuries of the Church.
First of all, you and I both know that there was disagreement among Christians as to whether or not the Apocrypha were canonical or not.
Not only that, but there probably wasn't clarity on what the word "canonical" meant. Also, and this is important, Christians always regarded the Apocrypha as extra-scriptural -- they just didn't always understand which books were apocryphal and which ones were biblical.
There WAS significant agreement on the canon of the New Testament, something Catholics seem hesitant to admit.
Depends on what you mean by "significant." Many didn't accept books like Revelation, Hebrews, James, II Peter, Jude, and I, II, and III John. Many didn't accept the Longer Ending of Mark or the story of the Woman Taken in Adultery. Others accepted books such as the Shepherd of Hermas or Pseudo-Barnabas or III Corinithians or I Clement or the Apocalypse of Peter. So, the d
In addition, you say that Tradition is not a substitute for Scripture and does not supercede it, but in a de facto sense, that IS exactly what it does, when you use it as an interpretational filter.
Allowing the teachings of the Apostles handed down to us to serve as the interpreter of Scripture does not "supersede" Scripture. Scripture is not thereby demoted or disregarded, but fruitfully applied.
Whenever Protestants present you with Scripture, your ultimate response is, "Well, Tradition says this, so Scripture can't mean that." In that case, you have elevated Tradition above Scripture.
Wrong. Rather, whenever Protestants present us with their INTERPRETATION of Scripture, we say, "Scripture can't mean that, because Tradition says this, and Scripture says that, and the Magisterium teaches this." Anyway, if relying on Tradition means elevating Tradition over Scripture, then what are you doing when you believe in Sola Scriptura, which appears nowhere in Scripture, or believe in the standard Protestant biblical cnon, which also appears nowhere in Scripture. You Protestants believe in extrabiblical Tradition too -- you just have traditions that disagree with that to which the Church of God adheres.
Oh rats, my previous comment got cut off! Let's try again:
Depends on what you mean by "significant." Many didn't accept books like Revelation, Hebrews, James, II Peter, Jude, and I, II, and III John. Many didn't accept the Longer Ending of Mark or the story of the Woman Taken in Adultery. Others accepted books such as the Shepherd of Hermas or Pseudo-Barnabas or III Corinithians or I Clement or the Apocalypse of Peter. So, the disagreement regarding the New Testament canon was comparable too, or even geater, than the disagreement regarding the Old Testament.
As for the likeness between Romans 2 and the Book of Wisdom, compare St. Paul's thought to, say, Wisdom 13-14. Christians have long recognised that St. Paul's thought in Romans and elsewhere was anticipated by, and therefore probably originated with, the thought expressed in the Book of Wisdom.
Really, the historical evidence seems to tell us that doubts regarding the deuterocanonical books were later developments in Christianity. The earliest records show Christians quoting from these books freely and without any qualms. Only later, as Christians became more aware of the Jewish rejection of those books, do we find certain Christian writers becoming apologetic or hesitant or doubtful about them. Their opinions were influential, and eventually led the Protestants astray, but they did not carry the day in the Church, which overruled them based on Apostolic Tradition.
I found a portion of the article I read regarding canonical vs noncanonical scripture. Unfortunaley I the author's name doesn't show up on this link and I am quite certain it is only a portin of the larger article that I read some time ago. I seem to recall that in the articvle I read, the author ha dit on his website and it was a response to Ray Aviles. Anyways, here is what I found:
http://www.catholic-convert.com/
...MichutaPalm.htm
A further comment on Nick T's statements. He said, since we have no oral traditions from the Apostles that can be identified which aren't in Scripture. But that's begging the question, and circular reasoning. "We must adopt Sola Scriptura because there are no oral traditions from the Apostles that can be identified which aren't in Scripture, and the way we know there are no oral traditions from the Apostles that can be identified which aren't in Scripture is because the only oral traditions that are important are contained in the Bible, for the Bible alone is the rule of faith."
Where it all goes wrong is in the assumption that we have no oral traditions from the Apostles that can be identified which aren't in Scripture. What Protestants really mean is that they won't accept any Apostolic Tradition as genuine unless it can be identified plainly in Scripture -- the extrabiblical traditions are there, but Protestants don't believe they're authentic because they acdept the unbiblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
Nick T. you wrote in response to my citation to Acts 20:35 as proof of an Oral Tradition as to the teachings of Jesus outside of the Gospels,
"But again, sir, it's now in the Bible. Meaning, as I said before, that any important oral traditions that were once passed around in Apostolic times, have ultimately been encapsulated in Scripture. Thank you for making my point for me."
Actually, it is much more than that. Acts is sort of a historical account of the how the early Church grew under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and how it was to conduct itself.
Like the Jerusalem Council which set the pattern for how future councils are to be conducted, this passage from Acts is a proof text that there was an oral tradition outside of the four Gospels that the Apostles taught. This passage is not an 'oops-we-forgot-to-put-this-into-one-of-the- Gospels-so-we-have-the-complete-account-of-all- of-the-teachings-of-Jesus.' The underlying unspoken premise of your argument is that Holy Spirit must have goofed when He inspired the four evangelists to write the Gospels and had to go back and correct His error. Implicit in your argument is the denial of the truth that the Scriptures were divinely inspired. You need to go back and rethink your encapsulation argument
Second, your argument fails because nowhere in Scripture is there a commandment that the teachings of Jesus were to be encapsulated. Jesus did not write down His teachings (unless you believe some of the legends surrounding the Shroud of Turin) nor did He ever direct anyone to do so. The only reason that the Scriptures were written down at all was because the founding members of the Catholic Church wrote them down at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit working through the Church Christ founded.
Further, there is no divinely inspired "fini" at the end of the NT. The canon was closed by the Catholic Church under the protection of the Holy Spirit which makes the canon part of the Apostolic Tradition itself.
In short, your argument is self-refuting and disproves the unbiblical notion of sola scriptura. I apologize for being so blunt but your argument is based on scepticism and not on faith. You are unwilling to see the truth because you are unwilling to open your eyes to it.
The doctrine of sola scriptura is all an assumption. Even in that radio debate I heard with Tim Staples against Steve Greg, Steve Greg at the end amitted he assumes bible alone. The definition of sola scriptura is all base on a assumption and not on the bible alone.
I thought St.Irenaeus once said this.
That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?"
Paul Hoffer wrote:
There are other references to the teachings of Jesus not found in the NT in the writings of the ECF's as well.
What, and where are those in the EC