It seems strange for Protestant apologist to appeal to the Church Fathers. I've listened to zillions of Protestants preachers over many many years, both on TV and radio. And I can say that I've often been surprised and edified. However, I can also say with complete honesty, that, barring exceptions as rare as oxygen in space, I never heard any of these ministers so much as even mention the Fathers, let alone appeal to them!
Now is true, the reformers did appeal to the fathers, but usually in a manner far removed from that of their predecessors. Luther (true to form) makes the point:
“Although the fathers were often wrong, they ought nevertheless to be honored on account of their testimony to faith.
So I venerate Jerome and Gregory inasmuch as one can sense [from their writings], in spite of everything else, that they believed as we do, as the church from the beginning believed, and as we believe.
So Bernard was magnificent when he taught and preached. However, when he engaged in disputation, he assailed what he before preached. Consequently the fathers aren’t worth much for controversy, but on account on their testimony to faith they ought to be honored.
Bernard was superior to all the doctors in the church when he preached, but he became quite a different man in his disputations, for then he attributed too much to law and to free will. To dispute in the church is therefore bad.” –
Luther’s, Table Talk, Summer or Fall, 1533. Luther’s works, American Ed. vol. 54, pp, 104-105
Does this even make sense?
Well, they do what they can. Calvin cited the Fathers extensively, to put forth the impression that Protestants were actually closer to them than Catholics. So when King tries the same stunt he is following in his master's footsteps.
Dave (Armstrong) wrote:
>>A patristic "Proto-Protestant" who believes in intercession of the saints, oral tradition, and praying for the dead? Nor does he even believe in what King claims he believes (sola Scriptura). It hasn't been proven. All that King has proven was that St. John Chrysostom held to the material sufficiency of Scripture, just as Cardinal Newman did, and as I do.>>
I too hold to material sufficiency, as do so many other Catholics (e.g. Congar, Dulles, Geiselmann, Guarino, Mohler, Rahner, Tavard – and despite King’s pleadings to the contrary – Brown and Boniface XVI), but King in our current dialogue asserts that it is impossible for a faithful Catholic to hold to such a doctrine! However, I maintain that David (King) does not correctly understand what material sufficiency actually means, and this, leads (IMHO) to significant problems in his understanding of current Catholic dogmas, and ultimately, his understanding of the early Church Fathers.
Grace and peace,
David
P.S. Is there too many David’s/Dave’s in my post??? [GRIN]
Here is what I say every time protestants even HINT that the Church Fathers were true protestants:
If the ECFs really preached protestant doctrines then every Protestant apologetics web page would be quoting them left and right. The fact is they hardly ever quote the ECFs, and they never consider the ECFs to hold any authoritative weight (unless the Protestant is defending themself from JWs or LDS).
The truth is the Catholics have won, while Protestantism is crumbling Catholicism is growing, and with work of Catholic Apologists like Armstrong there is no place to run from confronting the facts fairly and honestly. Many protestants are waking up to the fact their theology and history are both twisted and unBiblical, as a result many of the well educated Protestants are leaving protestantism for Catholicism (this severely hurts future generations of protestantism).
I truly believe within the next 25 years Protestantism will be nothing more than social clubs while their theology will take a major tumble to insignificance because there will be a point where no one (religious or secular) interested in the facts (Scripture, history, logic) will take such theology seriously nor even want to be associated with it.
Very nice job again Dave. I am not surprised at all these guys won't debate you. Deep down they must know their position can't stand scrutiny. I have written more on this topic on my own blog here:
http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.c...church-fathers/
"Your claim that Irenaeus represents the views of your modern day communion in apostolic succession is far more problematic than my understanding that he attempted to base all of his theology on inscripturated revelation."
Nice. I bet you felt almost like a scientist when you made up the word "inscripturated" and applied it like a technical term.
Imagine that a non-christian accidentally stumbles on this website and reads this debate. Here are two Christians involved in a debate, with thinly veiled hostility on both sides, over an abstruse dogmatic question concerning the significance and position of a Biblical text that appears to be laden with myths and scientific errors. What will he glean from the debate? That Christianity is b.s. and that its adherents are a bunch of small-minded pedants who cannot maintain an argument without putting words in each others mouths and using ad-hominem attacks.
Nice. I bet you felt almost like a scientist when you made up the word "inscripturated" and applied it like a technical term.
I could hardly feel anything, since I didn't make this statement. David T. King wrote this. But in his defense, I have heard this word before. He didn't make it up.
The debate was about historical fact: what did these particular Church Fathers believe? That should be considered important by anyone interested in actual history, regardless of personal religious belief. I happen to believe that accuracy in factual presentation is crucial.
If you don't like how I went about it, then you are welcome to give it a shot.
But thanks very much for your opinion, and you're welcome here anytime.
Hey Dave,
Saw your post over on "Beggars All" concerning Bullinger. Seems there is some 'history' between you and James...
Anyway, thought you might be interested to know that Bullinger's works are available in reprint editions: http://www.idc.nl/pdf/376_titlelist.pdf
Grace and peace,
David
P.S. Did someone hack into your blog and change Benedict XVI to Boniface XVI??? Just kidding, my bad, don't have a clue as to what I was thinking...
that DTK is way out there
Hi David,
Great job with the King exchange! Keep up the good work, and I will pray for your patience. 
Seems there is some 'history' between you and James...
Indeed. As with most anti-Catholics, they always have to make it personal and engage in ad hominem attacks. I thought this instance was particularly ridiculous and outrageous and so I thought it was worth it to make it a matter of record. It was a definite claim that I could document one way or the other (what I did).
James Swan could, of course, apologize and retract the charge and I would be more than happy to take down my post (as I have on many occasions), but failing that, it's important to show how these supposed leading "apologists" against Catholicism "argue."
Tolkatchenko:
Referring to a passage from the entry on John Calvin found in the 1910 version of the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The cold, hard, but upright disposition characteristic of the Reformed Churches, less genial than that derived from Luther, is due entirely to their founder himself. Its essence is a concentrated pride, a love of disputation, a scorn of opponents ... and it is austere to the verge of Manichaean hatred of the body. When dogma fails the Calvinist, he becomes, as in the instance of Carlyle, almost a pure Stoic."
The manner in which Mssrs. Swan, White, etc... engage in apologetics is truly stereotypical Calvinist behavior. I doubt that they have ever tried to exegete Mk. 9:38-41 or Mt. 5:43-48 much less put such words into practice. I know that Dave would at least pray for them. I doubt very much the former would reciprocate.
That being said, from viewing your website, you certainly know that apologetic writing is a style of literary expression where personal put downs and name calling is sometimes used to make a point. Scriptures record that Jesus, himself, used such tactics in some of his debate with the various schools of Pharisees. Looking at the writings of the Church fathers going back to Origen and the writings of various apologists, divines and other defenders of the faith throughout the centuries(e.g. St. Thomas More, Erasmus, Luther) contentious language has been used to varying degrees throughout history.
I agree that sometimes the tone of writing may seem to get overly personal and mean spirited (I once suggested to Dave that apologists should try to formulate some sort of Code of Ethics to counter this) but at least on Dave's blog, I have found that if he resorts to such language, it is usually because his opponents engaged in such tactics first and Dave is trying to answer their criticism point-by-point. And I would note that while Dave's opponents have sometimes lowered themselves to even using language that at least an attorney such as myself would find defamatory, to my knowledge Dave has never responded in kind.
BTW, I hope you don't mind that I added your site to my on-line reading list.
~Paul H.
Dave,
I'm not sure I understand fully what one means when he says he believes Scripture is "materially sufficient" or "material sufficiency". I can kind of deduce what you mean based on the topic and context but would rather have a succinct definition.
Thanks.
.
Just to get something off my chest:
The grammatical construct "Sola Scriptura" is not a statement (lacking a verb). Therefore without definition it is just a meaningless title.
When Catholics attack the proposition of "Sola Scriptura" I am curious exactly what it is they are attacking. I have read some pretty ludicrous Catholic definitions of this term, that I can assure you that your average Protestant in a pew does not adhere to.
Actually I would speculate that 80% of Protestants have no knowledge of the term "Sola Scriptura" anyway. To be honest, my knowledge of the term is more second hand.
Isn't this really a "Source of Faith" issue? How do you prove/disprove a "Source of Faith" disagreement anyway?
It seems to my simple mind that given a religious faith of any type, its sources would be an underlying assumption and not assertions that can be proven/disproven either way .
Hi Grubb,
See the post above about material sufficiency and the Assumption for more precise definitions.
The nutshell definition is "Scripture contains all that is necessary to be saved."
Or (as in my own belief):
"All Catholic doctrines are found in Scripture, either explicitly, implicitly, or deduced from other passages."
Formal sufficiency, OTOH, has to do with one's rule of faith. We deny that Scripture is formally sufficient, because we believe Tradition and the Church are also necessary to fully understand and apply Scripture: more as a sort of "fence" beyond which one can't go, than anything else.
The Protestant rule of faith, sola Scriptura is, OTOH: "Scripture is the only final and infallible authority in theology or Christianity. There is no such thing as an infallible Church, council, or pope."
Hi Rob,
The grammatical construct "Sola Scriptura" is not a statement (lacking a verb). Therefore without definition it is just a meaningless title.
It's not a title; it's a sort of slogan. It means "Scripture Alone is the final and infallible authority." The alone refers to its absolute uniqueness as the rule or norm of faith in Protestant theology.
When Catholics attack the proposition of "Sola Scriptura" I am curious exactly what it is they are attacking.
The above, or the notion that the Church and councils and popes are not also infallible and vessels of divinely-ordained authority.
I have read some pretty ludicrous Catholic definitions of this term,
People operate on faulty or skewed or straw man definitions all the time, so this doesn't surprise me. I try very hard to utilize the definitions provided by the most articulate of my opponents, so that that matter can be quickly resolved. The best proponent of SS today is Keith Mathison. I've responded to his thought on the matter.
that I can assure you that your average Protestant in a pew does not adhere to.
No doubt. There is plenty of ignorance to go around in all parties.
Actually I would speculate that 80% of Protestants have no knowledge of the term "Sola Scriptura" anyway. To be honest, my knowledge of the term is more second hand.
Nonetheless, it is a suoremely important topic in Catholic-Protestant discussion, so whatewver the state of knowledge is, doesn't affect the need to have a meaty discussion on the topic, anymore than wide-scale ignorance on quantum mechanics doesn't mean no one should talk about that.
Isn't this really a "Source of Faith" issue? How do you prove/disprove a "Source of Faith" disagreement anyway?
No; it is a matter of the "rule of faith" and the determination of proper authority or verification of truth claims in Christianity.
It seems to my simple mind that given a religious faith of any type, its sources would be an underlying assumption and not assertions that can be proven/disproven either way .
Not exactly sure where to go with this. Thinking Christians of all types want to synthesize and harmonize reason and faith. Some people want to operate in blind faith or fideism, but very few religious thinkers that I know of. Even Calvinist presuppositionalists that I vigorously critique, try to utilize reason, but they have very flawed premises, so it becomes jumbled and incoherent. But they do seek to apply reason, as opposed to denying that reason has any place whatsoever in theology.
Thanks Dave.
Everyone,
I've heard the Apostle Paul believed the 2nd coming was going to occur within his lifetime. I can't remember the theological term for those who believed that, but it was a reasonable expectation given what Jesus said.
If that was true, wouldn't it make sense for Paul to encourage believers to adhere to oral traditions as well as the written Word, because the compiled Bible would never have occurred? It was also reasonable to assume that since many couldn't read and not all of his letters would get to everyone, that the oral tradition would be a viable means of communicating for the short period he believed it was necessary.
Just as in the "telephone" game when the 1st person in a line says a sentence to the 2nd person, and the 2nd repeats it to the 3rd, and so on to the end, the closer one is to the 1st person the closer the oral sentence will be accurate. After the 3rd or 4th person, the sentence may not even resemble the initial sentence. Even though the RCC tried to protect oral traditions, as generations go by, it's reasonable to expect the message to change.
For this reason, even Paul acknowledged that the written word was preferential. If you write a sentence down and pass it from one person to the next,..., to the end, the message remains the exact same. This is obviously more effective at preserving the true, initial message.
Oral traditions would be good for a short time, while the written Word would be perfect forever. Doesn't that make sense?
What are some oral traditions that exist today?
.
Oral traditions would be good for a short time, while the written Word would be perfect forever. Doesn't that make sense?
No, it doesn't. It still depends on the reliability of the people who are handing down the message. Someone still has to tell you correctly what normative status you have to give to the document and on what basis. Absent that connection, the written document itself is perfectly useless except as a historical curiosity. One might just as easily ask me to believe as true and perfect the claims of any written document, whether it is the Qu'ran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Iliad, or whatever. It might be more likely to accurately report what they believed, but that doesn't give their belief any more normative status. To make it formally binding in any way, one has to appeal to some sort of authoritative tradition, and that always involves people.
I think that your "Telephone" example actually does prove something, though. One would think that ordinarily any formal doctrinal system would entail loss or degradation at some point, whether written or oral (Muslims, for example, are about as paranoid over textual transmission as a group of people can be, and even they can't claim perfection). The notion that one could articulate any doctrinal system that would maintain its formal integrity without contradiction in view of the entire data of a massive historical period is incredibly unlikely. The fact that Newman managed to do exactly that in a way that matched Catholic authority claims is the reason that he converted.
Dave:
I might not have been clear in what I was trying to say. That would not be surprising since I am a musical computer geek, not a theologian or an apologist.
I was just thinking in debate terms where the burden of proof rests upon the one making the assertion. I would think that the competing rule of faith assertions under Catholicism and (for lack of a better word) Protestantism would both be very difficult if not impossible to prove (hence my question on how do you prove a rule of faith issue anyways). And it seems to me that any assertion is not provable becomes an unprovable assumption.
For example, for myself a non-Catholic (or Protestant as it were) I will admit that my belief that what the Bible claims about itself (in 2 Timothy 3:16 and other places) being true is an assumption of my faith that I do not attempt to prove (now I do think it subjectively reasonable that God would "leave it in writing" but that is another issue). I also admit that these Scriptures do not disprove the rule of faith assertions under Catholicism. Neither (for that matter) do they disprove the rule of faith assertions of Mormonism. But neither have I found anything else in Scripture that proves any of the alternative rules of faith out there (from the Book of Mormon to Papal infallability and everything in between).
But this is based on Protestant assumptions. If I were Catholic, I would have Catholic assumptions and Protestant assumptions would be just as meaningless to me as Catholic assumptions now are.
And if this doesn't make sense, sometimes I think too much for my own good.
I was just thinking in debate terms where the burden of proof rests upon the one making the assertion. I would think that the competing rule of faith assertions under Catholicism and (for lack of a better word) Protestantism would both be very difficult if not impossible to prove (hence my question on how do you prove a rule of faith issue anyways). And it seems to me that any assertion is not provable becomes an unprovable assumption.
That is almost certainly true. Very little can be proved to a skeptic, so if you place a burden on your opponent to "prove" something to you, then you will (of course) never believe him.
But intellectual charity in dialogue actually demands the reverse. You must accept what other people say as true and try to find the reasons that what they say might be true, only admitting with reluctance at the end if it turns out to be inexplicable. You place the burden not on your opponent but on yourself, being your own worst critic (and admitting when your best has not been good enough, so that there is room for reasonable disagreement). And you never charge anyone with error without a firm conviction that one's charge has surpassed reasonable doubt. If you are unflinchingly hard on yourself and give your opponent the benefit of every doubt, you will have good dialogue. The mark of a lazy intellect is to do the opposite: to put burdens on one's opponent and give oneself the benefit of every doubt. And intellectual sloth is its own punishment; one looks both foolish and careless.
Just as in the "telephone" game when the 1st person in a line says a sentence to the 2nd person, and the 2nd repeats it to the 3rd, and so on to the end, the closer one is to the 1st person the closer the oral sentence will be accurate. After the 3rd or 4th person, the sentence may not even resemble the initial sentence.
Yes Grubb, on the surface, the ‘telephone’ analogy does seem to indicate that oral traditions are inherently unreliable.
However, this “analogy” doesn’t apply in this instance, since it doesn’t describe how true traditions, particularly sacred traditions, function.
As a matter of fact, it is so utterly unrelated to the way in which oral traditions actually function, that it must be considered a description of some ENTIRELY DIFFERENT phenomenon!
Here are a couple areas where the ‘telephone’ comparison differs from sacred tradition in particular.
1.There is no divinely instituted mechanism to safeguard, preserve and transmit the original message; human efforts alone are relied upon.
2.The SOURCE ITSELF is considered UNESSENTIAL for the continued faithful transmission of the message.
And here are some excerpts you might find interesting from a not too lengthy article discussing the “Jesus Seminar” in relation to oral tradition. I searched “reliability of oral tradition.”
"’oral tradition is not always unreliable; in fact, sometimes it is more reliable than the written word." Skeptics who compare oral transmission to the modern children's game of ‘telephone’ are engaging a hopeless anachronism.”
Oral recall was far more important in ancient societies, particularly Judaism, than we have commonly allowed for; Part of this growing confidence in the accuracy of oral transmission, is the growing awareness of the easy-to-memorize structure of many of Jesus sayings.
One of [Jesus'] prominent activities was teaching. Like the rabbis, he proclaimed the divine law, gathered disciples, debated with the religious authorities, was asked to settle legal disputes, and supported his teaching with Scripture.
He also used mnemonic devices, such as parables, exaggerations, puns, metaphors and similes, proverbs, riddles, and parabolic actions, to aid his disciples and audience in retaining his teachings. Above all he used poetry, "parallelismus membrorum", for this purpose.
If we come to the ministry of Jesus as first-century historians, and forget our twentieth-century assumptions about mass media, the overwhelming probability is that most of what Jesus said, he said not twice but 200 times, with (of course) a myriad of local variations.
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocde.../
orality01.html
Historical method – Oral tradition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
His...#Oral_tradition
Jonathan,
(Grubb) Oral traditions would be good for a short time, while the written Word would be perfect forever. Doesn't that make sense?
(Jonathan) No, it doesn't. It still depends on the reliability of the people who are handing down the message.
Both methods depend on the reliability of people handing it down, but the written word is more easily maintained than the oral word. And what happens if the written or oral word is lost or forgotten for a couple of generations? The oral word can't be regained. It's gone. The written Word can be found and reapplied immediately. That's exactly what happened in II Kings 22. King Josiah's men found a book (more than likely a copy of Deuteronomy) that had been lost and forgotten for a while; and Josiah enacted everything that was written in it. What if the book of Deut. had only been an oral tradition? It would have been lost forever after the initial forgetting.
It (the written Word) might be more likely to accurately report what they believed, but that doesn't give their belief any more normative status.
The Bible doesn't really need anyone to attest to it, does it? It's much easier to accept the Bible if we have someone passing down their knowledge of why the Bible is God's Word, but the truth of the matter is someone could find a Bible and accept it as God's Word once they've read enough of it. That's the beauty of the written Word. Oral traditions can be changed from person to person, despite their best efforts, but the written Word can remain literally unchanged for centuries.
We all believe the Holy Spirit has protected the written Word of God, but we also know the written Word has been changed in some regard. If you have a good study Bible, it'll tell you that Luke 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 aren't in some of the earliest manuscripts. I believe there are other passages but couldn't recall them off the top of my head. Were those passages added later, or were they simply left out of some of the manuscripts that happen to be the oldest ones we currently have? We don't know, but if this can happen to the written Word of God which man has guarded diligently and we fully believe the Holy Spirit has protected as well, why don't you believe it would happen even more so to a less reliable form of communication? If changes could happen to the written Word which is protected by the Holy Spirit, they could happen all the more to oral traditions even if they Holy Spirit is protecting them. Do you disagree with that?
.
Ben,
1.There is no divinely instituted mechanism to safeguard, preserve and transmit the original message; human efforts alone are relied upon.
The written Word also has a divinely instituted mechanism to safeguard, preserve, and transmit the original message, but as I pointed out to Jonathan If you have a good study Bible, it'll tell you that Luke 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 aren't in some of the earliest manuscripts. So we know the written Word has been subjected to change. How much more would the oral Word be changed since it is a much less reliable form of communication?
You quoted an article which said, "oral tradition is not always unreliable; in fact, sometimes it is more reliable than the written word." Skeptics who compare oral transmission to the modern children's game of ‘telephone’ are engaging a hopeless anachronism.”
Driving isn't always slower; in fact sometimes it's quicker to drive from NY to CA than flying" If the plane crashes, breaks down, or simply lands and refuses to take off again, driving would be quicker than flying; but 99.9% of the time flying from coast to coast is quicker than driving. To make the statement that sometimes the oral word is more reliable than the written word is akin to saying sometimes driving from coast to coast is quicker than flying. While true, it's so far from the norm that most would only accept it as the exception not the rule.
Which form do use when you really want to maintain or remember something? I'll bet you write it down more often than not. I've memorized my UserID and passwords for all the financial websites I go to (my bank, my credit card, my cell phone website, my BellSouth account, my retirement funds, my ABBA fan club page (just seeing if you're paying attention),...), but when I go a couple of months without accessing one, I need to have them resend it to me. If it wasn't written down somewhere, it'd be lost forever.
If we come to the ministry of Jesus as first-century historians, and forget our twentieth-century assumptions about mass media, the overwhelming probability is that most of what Jesus said, he said not twice but 200 times, with (of course) a myriad of local variations.
Our 21st century assumptions and how many times Jesus said something has no bearing on whether oral is as reliable as written over a long period of time. He may have told the story 200 times, but He didn't tell it 200 times to the same people for them to memorize it. Even the Apostle Paul thought the written was better than the oral.
Finally, if the Apostles didn't think the written Word was better than the oral word, why did they write the Bible? Some were letters, but probably two thirds of the NT are simply people writing things down to make sure they didn't get lost or skewed via oral transmission. If oral tradition was so good, why write down the Bible?
.
Both methods depend on the reliability of people handing it down, but the written word is more easily maintained than the oral word. And what happens if the written or oral word is lost or forgotten for a couple of generations? The oral word can't be regained. It's gone. The written Word can be found and reapplied immediately. That's exactly what happened in II Kings 22. King Josiah's men found a book (more than likely a copy of Deuteronomy) that had been lost and forgotten for a while; and Josiah enacted everything that was written in it. What if the book of Deut. had only been an oral tradition? It would have been lost forever after the initial forgetting.
This actually cuts the wrong way, at least for purposes of my argument. Israel's tradition kept functioning despite the absence of the book of the Law, and if it hadn't, there would have been no way of recovering it. But they kept functioning in such a way that even what was lost or forgotten could be reclaimed. One might analogize the lost book to lost formal content. So long as one continues to hold the formal rule, lost formal content can be reclaimed. As an example, there have been periods in history where tremendous amounts of Church writings were preserved only in monasteries, with the vast majority of Christians having no access to it. But if one had abandoned the rule by which formal content was recognized and announced, then the book of the Law (or the hidden Tradition during the Dark Ages) would have been lost for good.
The Bible doesn't really need anyone to attest to it, does it? It's much easier to accept the Bible if we have someone passing down their knowledge of why the Bible is God's Word, but the truth of the matter is someone could find a Bible and accept it as God's Word once they've read enough of it.
Not only do I not consider that "the truth of the matter," I consider it self-contradictory. Scripture itself points to paradosis as the means of transmission. If I were to pick up a copy of Scripture without having had it handed to me in an authoritative Tradition or some individual miraculous revelation to me, then I would be obliged to deny Scripture's authority by Scripture's own standards. You can believe that is "the truth of the matter," and I think many Protestants do, but I don't think that it could be called a rational belief by any stretch of the imagination.
That's the beauty of the written Word. Oral traditions can be changed from person to person, despite their best efforts, but the written Word can remain literally unchanged for centuries.
So can any text, whether it's Greek poetry or Egyptian funeral rituals or Babylonian mythology. The fact that something can be preserved accurately makes transmission easier, but for that unchangingness to actually matter, there has to be some handing-on. Absent a culture that accords significance to the writing, it's just a dead letter.
We all
We all believe the Holy Spirit has protected the written Word of God, but we also know the written Word has been changed in some regard. If you have a good study Bible, it'll tell you that Luke 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 aren't in some of the earliest manuscripts. I believe there are other passages but couldn't recall them off the top of my head. Were those passages added later, or were they simply left out of some of the manuscripts that happen to be the oldest ones we currently have?
I don't believe the written Word has changed at all. That's where you're not grasping this concept. To the extent the manuscript changed, the changes were accepted and incorporated as part of the Tradition. It doesn't really matter whether they were EVER in the originals, because the originals aren't where the normative authority of Scripture lies. What gives Scripture its authority is the fact that it has been handed down and recognized as inspired. The protection is from error, not from change, and the content of the deposit of faith never changed even if the letter did.
If changes could happen to the written Word which is protected by the Holy Spirit, they could happen all the more to oral traditions even if they Holy Spirit is protecting them. Do you disagree with that?
Again, it doesn't particularly matter if they change or not. What matters is that there is no error. So, yes, perhaps oral teachings change in light of other ideas, and perhaps even Scripture does. So long as the Tradition in which it finds itself is preserved from error in its formal integrity, changes are developments and not corruptions. That's the trouble with relying on any mundane method of transmission to protect you; it can't possibly. Only the formal integrity of a Tradition can, and that is what the Holy Spirit preserves with the charism of infallibility.
Hi Dave, I witnessed the short dialogue between Dave King and Christ’s Donkey over on James Swan’s blog. King could not explain the contradictions in his interpretation of Irenaeaus and the quotes CD was bringing to the dialogue. King ended up just dismissing the other guy as an idiot. In order to deflect the heat that was on him he changed the subject to the Assumption. Some time later King put up some more cut and paste quotes from Saints Athanasius, Basil and John Chrysostom to which you have responded. I arbitrarily picked Basil and began to prepare a response to show Dave King how pathetically he has taken Basil out of context. It was taking me some time and because of domestic responsibilities I was working in the wee hours of the morning. The evidence was damaging to King’s assertion that he (Basil) subscribed to Sola Scriptura and I was eager to finish it and post, but then I come across these words from Dave King:
“We disagree again on both Ratzinger and Brown. I DONT CARE WHAT THEY SAID IN OTHER CONTEXTS. I know what they said in the statements I gave.”
Well, after reading this my jaw dropped and I could only blink at the computer screen in disbelief, and right there I could see that it was pointless to show him how he took Basil out of context. The work was time consuming and I would not get through to him so I discontinued. King is fond of quoting St Athanasius, but I wonder if he knows Athanasius had this to say regarding Dave King’s technique of intentionally taking people out of context:
“Yes, he [Dionysius] wrote it, and we too admit that his letter runs thus. But just as he wrote this, he wrote also very many other letters, and they ought to consult those also; in order that the faith of the man may be made clear from them all, and not from this alone.”
Athasnasius, On the Opinion of Dionysius, 4 (forte A.D. 350/351 NPNF 2, IV:117
King’s comments regarding context illuminates this man’s attitude towards the truth. I no longer take him seriously and I consider him untrustworthy.
Incidentally, I came across many quotes from St Athanasius which shows that King has also taken him out of context to perpetuate his laughable assertion that Athanasius had the “Sola Scriputra attitude”. Here is only one of them:
But beyond these [scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. Upon this the Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it would not be a Christian, and should no longer be so called.”
Ad Serapion 1:28 (A>D> 360)
Peter
Superb, Peter. Keep up the good work!
Grubb, I'm just curious, how would you interpret the following passage, taking into account the meanings of these two important Greek words – Phulasso and Parakatatheke?
O Timothy, keep (Phulasso) that which is committed to thy trust, (Parakatatheke) avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20
Phulasso - to guard
Phulax - a guard, keeper
continued-
And just as an aside, compare the above to:
Prophylactic - to be on guard
Parakatatheke = a deposit, a trust or thing consigned to one's faithful keeping
Ben,
Thanks for responding to my previous comments. I should have time to reply tonight or tomorrow but was busy this afternoon.
Briefly, in I Tim 6:20 Paul appears to be telling Timothy to keep what Paul entrusted to him (the Good News) and avoid vain babblings.
But seriously, Paul is charging Timothy not to forget the things he's been taught and to guard the truth with great care. In II Tim 2:1-2 Paul tells Timothy, "You then my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others."
It may sound as though I brought up a passage that supports tradition, and in part it does. But I've acknowledged that early on oral tradition was critical. But I believe part of trusting the Gospel to others was done by writing it down, and that over the long haul that is the superior method of passing on the Gospel.
Also, you ignored one of my better points: Finally, if the Apostles didn't think the written Word was better than the oral word, why did they write the Bible? Some were letters, but probably two thirds of the NT are simply people writing things down to make sure they didn't get lost or skewed via oral transmission. If oral tradition was so good, why write down the Bible?
.
Grubb, if I may I'd like to reply to some things you've said.
Grubb
But I believe part of trusting the Gospel to others was done by writing it down and that over the long haul that is the superior method of passing on the Gospel.
Me
The superior method of passing on the Gospel is the Holy Spirit, specifically through the gifts of the Spirit.
Grubb
Paul is charging Timothy not to forget the things he's been taught and to guard the truth with great care
Me
Paul cannot be referring to Scripture here, as Timothy most probably already possessed the Scriptures, probably even a letter or two from Paul. Paul must be referring to the interpretation or teaching of the Scriptures, which would be oral Tradition.
Grubb
Finally, if the Apostles didn't think the written Word was better than the oral word, why did they write the Bible? Some were letters, but probably two thirds of the NT are simply people writing things down to make sure they didn't get lost or skewed via oral transmission. If oral tradition was so good, why write down the Bible?
Me
A couple of things:
First, it's an assumption that the Scriptures were written to keep things from getting skewed; and not a very good one. it's also an assumption that the apostles thought the written word was better than the oral. Take for example the Church at Corinth; they had Paul’s' letters, yet Paul still felt it was necessary to go there to set things straight. If Paul, as you say, thought the written word was better, why did he not just say, you have my letter, the case is settled? Because where there is the Church there is also authority, not just the written word.
Listen to the closing statement from James White on the Sola Scriptura debate posted on his blog; then take a trip over to his bookstore.
King’s comments regarding context illuminates this man’s attitude towards the truth. I no longer take him seriously and I consider him untrustworthy.
You know, I am really starting to come around to the idea that it is NOT reflective of his attitude to the truth but rather his ability to perceive logical connections. Quite honestly, I'm starting to think that the problem is that they literally can't grasp the conceptual structure involved. In the case you cited, for example, it's not so much that the statement is out of context (though it is), but that he doesn't understand the concepts implicit in the argument enough even to understand what the context would be.
I first remarked on the problem here:
http://crimsoncatholic.blogspot....ing-
issues.html
I admit that I didn't see how it could possibly be that what I said would just go over someone's head. But then I read this:
http://
beggarsallreformation.blo...calvinists.html
Seeing Swan call this "one of the best epistomological questions I've heard in a long time" was another one of those jaw-dropping moments. This is, of course, the very same epistemological question is posed by almost every historical argument against sola scriptura that I have heard (viz., how does one explain the Fathers, or anyone else, making major mistakes if they were faithful Christians?), and I was stunned that Swan could have missed this.
And then came the real clincher: this comment.
http://beggarsallreformation.blo...crypha-
did.html
The impression I got from this was "Let's have a discussion on the Catholic doctrine of the canon, but let's not talk about the Catholic view of what the canon is." Same problem here:
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?i...php?
itemid=1948
I know, it seems like an improbable hypothesis at this point, but the evidence is there. For Swan to say what he did and for King to respond to David Waltz as he did just doesn't make sense unless they honestly don't get the conceptual framework of Catholicism. I know it's difficult to be charitable to people who have been that nasty, but we have to confront the fact that "what we have here is a failure to communicate." I don't know how to fix it, but maybe rather than being in hostile rebuttal mode, we ought to work on being more positive and trying to find some helpful illustrations or analogies to give some kind of handle on the concepts.
Put it this way: we can clearly afford to turn the other cheek, because these arguments really aren't touching ours. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could actually achieve some breakthrough of understanding here? Maybe we could just focus on specific concepts (like "canon"), and point out why the concept being used doesn't match with the Catholic version.
I just can't help but feel like we're spinning our wheels if people who have been in a
I just can't help but feel like we're spinning our wheels if people who have been in apologetic confrontations with us for this long haven't made any progress in getting the concepts right. I'm not discounting stubbornness and hostility, but loving your enemies means looking past that. And when I read what Swan has said and what King has said, I'm saying to myself "We are not getting the Good News to these guys." The arguments have been answered for some time, but maybe now is the time to start concerning ourselves with our opponents as people. With the evidence above, I think it's hard to say that they are misunderstanding on purpose, so I wonder if there isn't anything we can do to help that misunderstanding.
Oh, BTW, wanted to point out something for Swan's benefit in response to this:
http://beggarsallreformation.blo...ers-
forums.html
The person on the Catholic Answers forum who raised the objection regarding Cardinal Ximines was actually a Protestant arguing against the Apocrypha, not a Catholic (hence, the "I hate to admit..."). It seems that the Catholics accepted her conclusions rather too hastily (evidently assuming that if a Protestant were willing to admit the error, she must have good reason), but I suspect that hasty acceptance was a RESULT of considering Webster a hack and a liar, rather than the error having created that impression. But it's that sort of uncharitable assessment, in which one believes bad things about someone that aren't even true, that I think should be eliminated. As in the case of John Calvin, disagreeing with someone is not cause to believe the worst about him.
Now you're singing my tune, Jonathan! In the post about Calvin and sodomy above I was making the distinction between someone being a prisoner and victim of their false premises, as opposed to being a deliberate liar. I do think the fundamentalist brand of Calvinism and presuppositionalism eventually have the effect of warring against the laws of classical logic.
Take King and White, for example. Both men have made no bones about despising me as a person. Yet even apart from that they labor under false presuppositions that invariably make it impossible for them to grasp opposing concepts or internal contradictions.
Finally, if the Apostles didn't think the written Word was better than the oral word, why did they write the Bible? Some were letters, but probably two thirds of the NT are simply people writing things down to make sure they didn't get lost or skewed via oral transmission. If oral tradition was so good, why write down the Bible?
Grubb, I’m not sure I understand your question. I think part of the problem is that there is still a fundamental misunderstanding as to what tradition actually is. And it is this misunderstanding what oftentimes leads to the conclusion that written tradition not only has greater reliability but also greater intrinsic value than oral tradition.
But understanding tradition is not so easy a task, as I myself am beginning to discover. So here’s a general definition that has helped me: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/tradition. Note that tradition is the “handing over” of something. It is not a mere “telling” of something! There is a world of difference between the two.
Now regarding the relative value of one vs. the other, I think you would agree that God’s spoken and written traditions are both EQUALLY HIS WORD, and thus both are EQUALLY and PROFOUNDLY SACRED! And one simply does not DISCARD one SACRED thing for another!
As to the idea that the apostles believed the “written word was better than the oral word,” all I can say is it that such a thing seems to me not only highly improbable, but unthinkable! I for one just can’t imagine the holy apostles EVER making such an arbitrary distinction. I rather imagine they would have recoiled even at the very thought of such a (blasphemous??) notion.
Now it's my understanding that it was the early reformers who first proposed this idea that written traditions were somehow intrinsically more sacred than, or superior to, oral traditions.
Until next time, Grubb, God bless.
Yet even apart from that they labor under false presuppositions that invariably make it impossible for them to grasp opposing concepts or internal contradictions.
I guess what I'm proposing is more of a pedagogical model. I think we've been taken a bit too much of the "blame the student" approach. But logically, if we're confident that we know better than they do and we can perceive that they're missing something, then we should treat that as our responsibility. You know how it is when kids get frustrated with being unable to learn things or with having to learn things they consider unimportant. This just strikes me "Why do we have to learn this?" writ large.
I don't think there is anything more substantive here in terms of personal dislike than the "too cool for school" attitude. But it doesn't make sense for the teacher to take this sort of emotional reaction personally. If it's disruptive to the class, then one has to address it with discipline, and I think that is what the immediate substantive responses do and the documentation of bad behavior does. But once that is done, then we have to start working on finding ways to get the concepts across. It might be hopeless, but we have to do our absolute best to get to that point. I think we've gotten past the stage of needing discipline to keep the class in order, and now we have to start diagnosing specifically what these folks are missing.
They won't accept any such instruction, of course. For the anti-Catholic, a Catholic supposedly teaching them anything about theology is, in their mind, sort of like an infant teaching Einstein about nuclear physics.
That gets back to both the personal element and the presuppositions. For them, we aren't even Christians, and an unregenerate mind can't grasp the things of God at all, so how could we possible teach them anything?
And, per my recent post on Total depravity: not only are we clueless because of the above, but we also must have nefarious motives for all that we do (in the framework of that doctrine, this is literally the case).
Granting all of the above, this easily explains why their personal attitudes leave much to be desired as well. Add to that the fact that someone like myself is a convert (hence a "traitor") . . . of course, James White thinks I was never a true Protestant in the first place, precisely because (as an Arminian evangelical Protestant) I never accepted this hooey of Total Depravity.
Jonathan,
Now regarding the relative value of one vs. the other, I think you would agree that God’s spoken and written traditions are both EQUALLY HIS WORD, and thus both are EQUALLY and PROFOUNDLY SACRED! And one simply does not DISCARD one SACRED thing for another!
I agree the written Word and the oral traditions established by Jesus & the Apostles are God's Word and equally & profoundly sacred, but today's oral traditions don't necessarily equal Apostolic traditions. My big concern is that oral tradition can be ammended, altered, and/or lost far easier than the written Word can. And when I see traditions like: unmarried priests, praying to heavenly saints, not eating meat on Friday during lent, and others that didn't start until long after the first century, I understand that many "traditions" aren't necessarily God given but rather started by man long after Jesus and the Apostles were gone.
As to the idea that the apostles believed the “written word was better than the oral word,” all I can say is it that such a thing seems to me not only highly improbable, but unthinkable! I for one just can’t imagine the holy apostles EVER making such an arbitrary distinction. I rather imagine they would have recoiled even at the very thought of such a (blasphemous??) notion.
About a year ago Ken Temple and Dave were having a similar discussion. Ken said Paul considered the written word (with a little "w") superior to the oral word, and I believe Dave concurred. Dave, please comment on whether my memory is correct or not. Thanks. The best passage I can think of to support such a claim is I Cor 4:6, "I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another."
The OT had the command to rest on the Sabbath. The Pharisees took that simple command and created scores (possibly hundreds) of rules for what one could and couldn't do on the Sabbath. Jesus was even chastised for his disciples picking grain to eat on the Sabbath. That's an example where tradition was created by church authorities that wasn't necessarily in accordance with God's Word. Similarly, there was only one required fast per year according to the OT, but the Pharisees had expanded that to be many more.
All tradition isn't bad. But traditions that are extra-biblical (unmarried priests) and anti-biblical (praying to saints) force me to conclude that the written word is superior in maintaining the truth than oral traditions are. With that conclusion, I consider the written Word superior to oral traditions, especially when some of those traditions conflict with the written Word.
.
They won't accept any such instruction, of course. For the anti-Catholic, a Catholic supposedly teaching them anything about theology is, in their mind, sort of like an infant teaching Einstein about nuclear physics.
But isn't that really the same problem as with the high schooler who thinks the teacher has nothing to teach him?
That gets back to both the personal element and the presuppositions. For them, we aren't even Christians, and an unregenerate mind can't grasp the things of God at all, so how could we possible teach them anything?
But that's what THEY believe, not what we believe. Put it this way: that belief is itself wrong. We believe in natural theology, so that there is a natural limit as to how much one's reason can possibly deny. Eventually, you get confronted with the limits of solipsism; if you kick the solipsist in the shin, he knows that he's been kicked even if he does deny it. Errors beget errors, and there is going to be a mismatch with reality at some point unless they are willing to retreat to pure solipsism (and even then, like I said, that isn't a true retreat). So as much as the presuppositionalist approach seems to exclude the possibility of evidence being brought to bear, there is always a crack in the armor where reality has already crept in. I'm not saying that we are going to be able to find it, but as faithful Catholics, we must necessarily believe it is there, since all deviations from natural theology are based on a denial of reality at some level. That belief means that there is no reason to be frustrated, because they are not CAPABLE of frustrating the truth. Even they have capitulated to the truth somewhere, even if we haven't the resources or time to make explicit how they have.
Grubb:
I think you meant to address Ben M, but I can speak to a couple of your points:
About a year ago Ken Temple and Dave were having a similar discussion. Ken said Paul considered the written word (with a little "w") superior to the oral word, and I believe Dave concurred. Dave, please comment on whether my memory is correct or not. Thanks. The best passage I can think of to support such a claim is I Cor 4:6, "I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another."
It's pretty well conceded at this point that this refers to not standing in judgment over another man's salvations ("what is written" being a reference to the "book of life"). The best passage for what you are saying would probably be Proverbs 30:5-6 ("Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you, and you be found a liar"), but it would be a stretch to make that apply only to Scripture in context. Besides, the question isn't whether written works are better, but how one judges what works are and aren't part of the Apostolic Tradition. In other words, not going beyond what is written cannot be meaningful if you have no way of determining what written works are part of the Tradition.
All tradition isn't bad. But traditions that are extra-biblical (unmarried priests) and anti-biblical (praying to saints) force me to conclude that the written word is superior in maintaining the truth than oral traditions are.
But you're not thinking in terms of the overarching Tradition that recognizes what the written word is (and what the truth is, when it comes down to it). Effectively, Jesus, in judging the Pharisees, was pitting one tradition against another; he was saying that the Godly Tradition (in which God had appointed Israel as His holy people) was at odds with the Pharasaical tradition (giving themselves authority beyond what God gave them). But if the Pharisees themselves had not been part of a Tradition that handed down Scripture and provided rules for judging them as right or wrong, then there would have been no standing to reject them. It wasn't a question of the Scripture being written and the Pharisees being oral; they wrote down all of the things they taught. It was a question of the Pharisees claiming an authority that the Tradition never gave them, an authority that was not handed down by God. But to the extent the Pharisees HAD authority, it had to be respected.
Oral and written is a red herring, because the real issue if over how you tell whether anything, whether it is oral or written, comes from God. You seem to be saying that some historical method can tell you that, and I (and Ben M., for that matter) are saying that this is nonsense. It's the same claim that you are making that the Bible would
Jonathan,
You commented 2 days ago; I'm just now getting to it.
This (the recovering of Deut in II Kings 22) actually cuts the wrong way, at least for purposes of my argument. Israel's tradition kept functioning despite the absence of the book of the Law, and if it hadn't, there would have been no way of recovering it.
In II Kings 22:13 it says, "Go and inquire of the LORD for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the Lord's anger that burns against us because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us."
And God replied in verses 16 & 17, "'This is what the LORD says: I am going to bring disaster on this place and its people, according to everything written in the book the king of Judah has read. Because they have forsaken me and burned incense to other gods and provoked me to anger by all the idols their hands have made, my anger will burn against this place and will not be quenched.'"
It doesn't sound as though Israel's "tradition" was functioning very well, does it? Any time God threatens disaster and His anger burns against someone, I dare say they're not doing what they should. They hadn't lost the entire "Bible" of their time, they had simply lost (presumably) Deuteronomy. What if Deut. hadn't been written down? It would have been lost forever.
One might analogize the lost book to lost formal content. So long as one continues to hold the formal rule, lost formal content can be reclaimed.
Apparently they WEREN'T holding to the formal rule, unless worshipping false idols is the correct formal rule. It was only by God's grace using the written Word of Deut that they were spared.
The fact that something can be preserved accurately makes transmission easier,
You're acknowledging that the written word is better for keeping a "message" unchanged when passing from generation to generation. This very fact, to me, shows that the written Word is better than oral tradition. The written Word has changed so very little, while tradition has changed dramatically. If we ever get side-tracked as they did in King Josiah's time, we have a written, unchanged standard to recalibrate to. If we recalibrate to traditions which are far more easily changed, we may be recalibrating to the wrong thing.
(cont'd)
.
(cont'd)
The protection is from error, not from change, and the content of the deposit of faith never changed even if the letter did.
So how much can we change it and still have it be the Word of God? A little more? A lot more? The reason it was written down was to show us how to live. If we allow it to change continually, it'll cease to be what the Apostles & their contemporaries wrote. At some point it'll cease to be the Word of God and become the Word of Man. Tradition was good & necessary initially, but it's changed to the point where it appears to be the Tradition of Man.
I can accept the couple of passages that have been added or left out over 2000 years and still consider the Bible the Word of God, but if it continues to change and lose stuff and gain stuff, it'll cease to be the Word of God. This is why the written Word is now considered superior (or should be). It has changed nominally in 2000 years while tradition has changed drastically.
Again, it doesn't particularly matter if they change or not. What matters is that there is no error.
But we can't assure there's no error when we change it. Paul said, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," (I Tim 2:5) but RC tradition says it's ok to pray to heavenly saints. I trust the unchanged written Word rather than the changed RC tradition.
That's the trouble with relying on any mundane method of transmission to protect you; it can't possibly.
I'll trust the Holy Spirit to convict me through the unchanged written Word over the changed RC traditions any day of the week.
You've never answered why the writers of the Bible wrote it instead of just relying on oral traditions. I presume it's because you agree the written word is easier to pass on accurately. If I'm right in that, then you have a hard time justifying putting tradition (which has changed dramatically) on the same level as the written Word (whose changes are negligible).
.
Jonathan and Ben M.,
Sorry if I replied to the wrong person. My bad
.
Jonathan,
Oral and written is a red herring, because the real issue if over how you tell whether anything, whether it is oral or written, comes from God. You seem to be saying that some historical method can tell you that, and I (and Ben M., for that matter) are saying that this is nonsense. It's the same claim that you are making that the Bible would
My position is that the early church fathers who canonized the Bible had the Apostolic Tradition (not the RC tradition) and had the authority to determine what was and wasn't canon material. Once they canonized the NT, it became the superior authority, because of it's unchanging nature.
If every tradition in the RCC could be traced back to the 1st Century, I would have a much harder time with sola scriptura; but since so many aren't and some seem to contradict scripture, I'm forced to choose which I will obey when they're at odds...I choose scripture.
.
ME: "They won't accept any such instruction, of course. For the anti-Catholic, a Catholic supposedly teaching them anything about theology is, in their mind, sort of like an infant teaching Einstein about nuclear physics."
Jonathan: But isn't that really the same problem as with the high schooler who thinks the teacher has nothing to teach him?
No, because down deep, the "cool" high school kid who doesn't give a &%$# knows that the teacher knows more than him, but the anti-Catholic, even down deep, is absolutely convinced that the Catholic is far inferior to him in virtually every way.
So the analogy would be to this same high school kid's opinion of his 3-year-old sister supposedly having something to teach him.
These people will NOT examine their premises, which it seems to me, is what you are calling for. We saw that in both White's and Swan's refusal to do a live chat room debate with me on the fundamental question of "what is a Christian and are Catholics Christian?" We see it in David T. King's utter refusal to respond to my lengthy critiques.
And it is all because they think we are ignorant, unregenerate fools, and (for the Calvinist) totally depraved. If you can find a way to break through that, you will have my eternal admiration and respect. I don't see that it is even possible. I've never seen anyone break through that iron wall in observing these guys for almost 17 years now, as a Catholic.
Grubb:
OK, I'm beginning to seeing the misunderstanding. You are thinking of the Apostolic teaching as "stuff," material. That's why we're talking past each other. I'll summarize what I see you as saying, using this term "stuff" (which is something like "information," but not quite for reasons that I hope to explain).
The reason that you are making such a big deal about transmission is that you see the goal as taking the "stuff" the Apostles left us and making sure that the "stuff" stays the same, not adding new "stuff" that could be mistaken for the old "stuff" or losing any of the old "stuff." So you think they wrote this "stuff" down so it wouldn't get lost (since in oral transmission, "stuff" gets lost) and told people not to lose this "stuff" so that you can compare new material X to the "stuff" to make sure that it isn't incompatible.
With respect to 2 Kings, you are saying that Israel failed at its job of "stuff" protection. It was a good thing that the "stuff" was in writing, because otherwise the failure would have meant that the "stuff" was lost. With respect to Catholicism, then, you see it as relying on "stuff" that was not properly Apostolic, hence the "stuff" that Catholicism is labeling the Apostolic "stuff" is not really the "stuff." Instead, the new "stuff" should be judged against the original "stuff," and what is contradictory should be thrown out, while what is new should not be passed off as Apostolic "stuff."
All that sounds completely reasonable as a concept, and it is equally clear (at least to me) that it could not even possibly be true. This entire "stuff" concept is based on the notion that inspiration is some inherent property, like color or hardness, so that you can just look at the "stuff" and perceive it. That's the source of your romantic (but, alas, incredibly implausible) claim that the Word of God would be known as such simply by looking at it. But given that I consider this claim false, I cannot accept your account of the Apostolic deposit as "stuff."
So if it isn't "stuff," what is it? This is the celebrated distinction between material and formal sufficiency. Inspiration is a property of intended function, so that something is "inspired" as being intended for use according to a specific formal rule.
One of the major differences between the Old and New Testament is understanding. The Israelites were more or less keeping Scripture blindly, but the Church has the understanding (formal awareness) to develop by the gift of the Holy Spirit. You're effectively holding the Church to the Israelite rule (hang onto this, and don't change anything), but that rule was only established in the way that it was because Israel was a mere shadow of the Church. In effect, Israel was holding Scripture for the Church; the inspiration of the prophets was looking forward to the Church. So the reason that they were simply told to hold it
In effect, Israel was holding Scripture for the Church; the inspiration of the prophets was looking forward to the Church. So the reason that they were simply told to hold it and not to tamper with it was that they weren't the intended audience (at least not qua Israel, although certain righteous men were blessed with some insight into the true meaning). They were only the shadow by which the true Church would be identified.
What I would say is that if you are going to advance this "stuff" theory, then you need to articulate exactly what the "stuff" is, how it is perceived, how it gets transmitted, etc. Then show how this "stuff" theory is consistent with the "stuff" itself and how it plays out in history (did the Fathers have this "stuff" idea?). It seems to me that this concept of "stuff" is badly corrupting the discussion between Catholics and Protestants. (Protestants seem to think of material sufficiency as "stuff" and formal sufficiency as being able to see what the "stuff" is, which is clearly not what Catholics teach.) Catholics consider the "stuff" theory completely unbelievable as an account of divine revelation, so we need to come to some understanding before getting past that point.
Oh, I forgot to mention one thing. In terms of this "stuff" theory, one advantage of the Church over Israel is that it has its own regulative function (i.e., the Magisterium) to prevent deviations from the Tradition. When Israel blew it, God Himself directly intervened to get them back on the straight and narrow, either through righteous men (like King Josiah himself and the prophets) or through punishment. The Church has the Holy Spirit working in Her already, so the corrective feature we see in 2 Kings is internal, not external. Thus, it is reasonable to think that Israel could fail where the Church cannot.
but the anti-Catholic, even down deep, is absolutely convinced that the Catholic is far inferior to him in virtually every way.
That may be true. If they're convinced we're subhuman, it's hard to imagine being able to interact with them on a rational level. They wouldn't take what we say any more seriously than the sounds an animal makes. It just seems like it's hard to believe that they hate us so much that they view us as animals, but I guess that's not impossible, given the traction of racist beliefs in the history of American Reformed theology (R.L. Dabney, R.J. Rushdoony). And I have dealt with apparently rational people who have held such bizarre beliefs, so it's not impossible. I suppose I just don't like to think of that being a real live option.
I'll think on what you've said, though. It is a lot to chew on.
Ken said Paul considered the written word (with a little "w") superior to the oral word…. The best passage I can think of to support such a claim is I Cor 4:6, "I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another."
Grubb,
Even here, in this very passage you cite in support of SS, Paul seems to be making clear there is, in fact, another source besides (not in opposition to or in competition with) scripture to which believers MUST give their assent.
"I have applied all these things to myself …that you may LEARN FROM US not to go beyond what is written.”
"…applied ... TO MYSELF …that you may LEARN from US"
That doesn't sound very "Protestant" at all if you ask me. Matter of fact, it sounds rather suspiciously "Catholic! " 
I believe this passage demonstrates clearly the holy apostle's FAITHFULNESS to the PATTERN (scripture + A LIVING TEACHING AUTHORITY), which CHRIST HIMSELF established during his earthly ministry.
Jonathan,
Your comment was excellent!! You did a great job showing that you truly understand my point, stated where you believe we differ, and were very kind throughout. This is the very thing I believe Dave is trying to achieve here. You did very well to summarize my position and appear to understand my point. So why don't you agree with me?!?! (I laughed out loud when I wrote that)
The reason that you are making such a big deal about transmission is that you see the goal as taking the "stuff" the Apostles left us and making sure that the "stuff" stays the same, not adding new "stuff" that could be mistaken for the old "stuff" or losing any of the old "stuff." So you think they wrote this "stuff" down so it wouldn't get lost (since in oral transmission, "stuff" gets lost) and told people not to lose this "stuff" so that you can compare new material X to the "stuff" to make sure that it isn't incompatible.
Exactly!
Instead, the new "stuff" should be judged against the original "stuff," and what is contradictory should be thrown out
Right again.
All that sounds completely reasonable as a concept, and it is equally clear (at least to me) that it could not even possibly be true.
Why not? When someone comes up with a new idea that contradicts what we know is God-inspired truth, should we accept the new idea? In Jesus' and the Apostle's day, no one prayed to heavenly saints, and Paul said Jesus is the only mediator. But somewhere along the way, someone came up with a new idea: let's pray to Mary, or Moses, or John, or Christopher and let them mediate for us. Shouldn't they have compared that to what we know is truth and said, that's not really a good idea?
This entire "stuff" concept is based on the notion that inspiration is some inherent property, like color or hardness, so that you can just look at the "stuff" and perceive it. That's the source of your romantic (but, alas, incredibly implausible) claim that the Word of God would be known as such simply by looking at it.
Many people who are taught the Bible is truth in RC & PT churches alike (Joseph Stalin being one of them) reject that idea. My point wasn't that anyone picking up the Bible would accept it as truth, but that some would. Truth is truth whether it's recognized by people or not. The Bible is truth whether a person recognizes it or not. I agree it's far more helpful if one has a parent, mentor, church, or friend who can help lead him to realize the Bible is the truth; but some would be able to pick up the Bible and, by God's grace, recognize it as truth.
(cont'd)
.
...(cont'd)
In terms of this "stuff" theory, one advantage of the Church over Israel is that it has its own regulative function (i.e., the Magisterium) to prevent deviations from the Tradition.
Assuming scripture itself is part of the tradition, has the magisterium been successful? Praying to saints seems contradictory to every instance where the Bible tells us and shows us how to pray. Another is bowing in front of a statue. I've seen girls at weddings bow in front of a statue of Mary and pray to her (Mary, not the statue). In Lev 26:1 it says, "'Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God." Now I realize my friend wasn't worshipping the statue and presume the RCC didn't put it there as an idol, but even bowing in front of it can be dishonoring to God and misleading to nonRCs who were present at the wedding.
Why would the RCC allow praying to heavenly saints and bowing before a "carved stone" if those actions contradict what the Bible says? I'm not trying to get off on rabbit trails but rather trying to show what I believe are 2 examples of the RCC enacting or allowing tradition to be established that's contradictory to God's Word.
You're correct that this is a point of divergence for us, but for me there's a matter further upstream that facilitates our difference. RCs believe there is an infallible Church and Pope. If I'm not mistaken, RCs believe that in certain instances the Pope is infallible (papal decrees) and the Church is infallible. If I believed that, I would be so much closer to accepting new "stuff" as God inspired rather than man inspired, but I don't. Much of what you claim would be perfectly acceptable to me and make sense if I thought the Pope and the RCC were infallible regarding doctrine.
I've thoroughly enjoyed this conversation, but we may be at an impasse.
.
Ben M,
I have no problem submitting to my church's authority and teaching. Nor do I have a problem with the wiser men in my church teaching me and setting the example for me as Jesus, Paul, and the Apostles did. In that, we agree very much. Even the smartest guys can learn from someone else, and an authoritative church is the best place.
My concern is that the "living authority" isn't perfect. Churches make mistakes. Pastors and priests are fallible. Since the "living authority" is periodically errant and scripture isn't, scripture should be the highest authority.
As with Jonathan, we may have come to an impasse. I've thoroughly enjoyed discussing this with you and look forward to future conversations.
.
________________________________________
I have no problem submitting to my church's authority and teaching. Nor do I have a problem with the wiser men in my church teaching me and setting the example for me as Jesus, Paul, and the Apostles did. In that, we agree very much. Even the smartest guys can learn from someone else, and an authoritative church is the best place.
________________________________________
But Grubb, this is a circular agrument which does nothing to support your position. At the end of the day, you accept the teaching of these wiser men only if they happen to agree with you.
As Catholics we have a childlike " faith" that God, through the working of the Holy Spirit, prevents his Church from teaching us error. Can you really not see that it is a profound unshakable "faith in God" that allows the Catholic to believe this about His Church and not " faith in an institution" full of sinful (as well as holy) men? Can you not understand that men like me accepted Scripure as the Word of God after I had received the gift of faith that allowed me to accept the Church as the pillar and foundation of the truth?
Peter
Dave, I don't know how to italicizewords using the haloScan. Can you help me out?
Peter
Hi Peter,
You do the following for italics:
< i >
[word]
< / i >
[but no spaces in between]
For bolding use a b instead of an i.
I agree that we might have come to the end of this discussion, but I am glad that we at least understand one another. I think Protestants sometimes don't quite get that we grasp the "stuff" concept, but that we just don't believe it. Let me answer one of your observations:
Truth is truth whether it's recognized by people or not.
That is absolutely true but entirely unhelpful. The question of the rule of faith is not really whether something is true, but how people recognize that it is true (that's what "formal sufficiency" covers). That is also the only question as to which we can have historical insight.
When you drill down into the detail of someone like Irenaeus, sola scriptura is not there. We would argue that what was there wasn't the modern Catholic rule either, but it included principles by which the Catholic rule could be developed through application. The problem is that sola scriptura, which is by definition intended as preservative, doesn't allow development, so a Protestant can't consistently appeal to that sort of explanation. So it's hard to see how the rule could claim historical continuity, because the rule itself would have to have been handed down unchanged, and yet, we don't even have any evidence that anybody ever held it! And that's really why a lot of Catholics end up Catholic, and why Newman said "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." It doesn't appear that anyone in Christian history before the Reformation actually used the standard you are espousing to determine what is true, and for those people who demand historical continuity in this respect, that is unacceptable.
Peter,
Thanks for responding.
But Grubb, this is a circular agrument which does nothing to support your position. At the end of the day, you accept the teaching of these wiser men only if they happen to agree with you.
Not true. I've changed my way of thinking on some issues as pastors and elders have taught me. I've changed how much I give to the church as I've been taught about tithing and sacrificial giving. This is huge as I'm a very big tightwad.
As Catholics we have a childlike " faith" that God, through the working of the Holy Spirit, prevents his Church from teaching us error.
You're not suggesting the RCC has never erred are you? It supported and encouraged in some manner the Inquisition. It supported and encouraged in some manner indulgences. These are pretty big errors.
Can you really not see that it is a profound unshakable "faith in God" that allows the Catholic to believe this about His Church and not " faith in an institution" full of sinful (as well as holy) men?
Is it really faith in God or faith in the RCC? I'm not doubting your faith in God, I'm simply wondering if the portion of your faith that allows you to trust the RCC never to teach error is in God or in the RCC. Here's why. The Word of God doesn't teach us that His Church will be error free. If you read the Word of God, you wouldn't consider the Church to be error free. In fact, you should conclude quite the opposite, since Paul was always writing letters to correct certain churches' errors. In fact even in Rev 2 & 3 we see that the churches in John's day were filled with error. It's the RCC that teaches the RCC is infallible, not the Word of God. So it seems as though your faith is in the RCC regarding the Church never teaching error. I may be splitting hairs on that, and I may be wrong, but I wanted to bring it up as food for thought.
Can you not understand that men like me accepted Scripure as the Word of God after I had received the gift of faith that allowed me to accept the Church as the pillar and foundation of the truth?
The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, not the Word? Interesting. On what do you base that statement?
.
[The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, not the Word? Interesting. On what do you base that statement?]
1Tim 3:15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, [the pillar and foundation of the truth.]
Peter
Fell right into that one, eh Grubb?
Yes I did.
That was a good thing to base it on.
In my defense, my version of the Bible (the ESV) says, "...a pillar and buttress of truth." The difference between "the" pillar and "a" pillar and "foundation" and "buttress" is pretty significant.
You can see why I didn't catch it in my search. I'll have to do a little homework on this one.
.
One version I have reads pillar and bulwark of the truth.
As a noun- Bulwark 1a : a solid wall-like structure raised for defence : RAMPART, BREAKWATER, SEAWALL 2 : a strong support or protection ,education as a ~ of democracy 3 : the side of the ship above the deck.
As a verb- to fortify or safegaurd with a bulwark
I believe that buttress carries a similar idea.
And Grubb, don't forget to look the definition of pillar as well as breakwater, rampart, and seawall.
God uses these words to describe the Chruch that He founded on Peter. Pretty impressive isn't it? Now tell me, does this sound like something that can't be confidently relied upon for the truth? Does God describe Eric Svendsen or James Swan or James White, or David King with these words? No he doesn't, and furthermore, they are not even in communion with this Church.
This is great. Now we're at the "let's define the words" stage. I just find it a bit humorous, but Grubb's a great guy to talk with. Would that there were many like him, when you look at the calibre of the arguments (or lack thereof) of many on his side.
I don't know how to italicize words using the haloScan. Can you help me out?
Dave, if I may, I’d like to add a follow-up to your reply to Peter.
Peter, here are a couple links which may come in handy anytime you need to “markup” a page. They certainly have for me, especially since I'm no great expert on computers.
The first is to an article on HTML in general. Section 3.2, Elements, is where I learned how to "mark-up" comments here. It is also where I learned how to use the so-called “href attribute” to create a link in which only the link title (“HTML” for example, as in the link above) appears rather than the URL or web address. This will allow you give any name you please to a particular web address.
You should however be aware of a couple of things before using these methods.
a) They do require a bit more work than simply pasting in a link (probably why most people don't bother with them).
b) They can , if you are not careful, require a whole lot more work!
In my case what usually happens is that, occasionally, when trying to “markup” a link, it will either just redirect back to HaloScan or exhibit some other strange behavior that (for me at least) no amount of effort seems to remedy. Maybe Dave or someone else more knowledgeable about HTML than myself can explain what I'm doing wrong.
In any event, probably the best way to get the hang of this stuff is just to experiment - a lot!
And finally, here's the second link. This one as you can see, I didn’t "bother" to “markup.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticons
I hope you find them both useful.
Grubb
This may seem light-years from the topic at hand, but I would like you to read the story linked below anyway and share your thoughts on it. I’ll explain why later.
It’s called “A divine invasion.” I think you’ll find it both moving and edifying. It is a short but beautiful story of grace, hope, and mercy.It reveals God’s unbelievable goodness and kindness, even toward “the ungrateful and the wicked.” Luke 6:35 (NRS)
There is also an audio tape of this story, which I have. On it Bishop Sheen gives additional details:
"He was dying of cancer - but cancer of the face!"
"I have never seen such a noisome sight."
And on the very night this soul was to enter eternity, Sheen made a solemn promise:
"I promised the Good Lord that, if this man would show some sign of repentance before he died, I would build a chapel for the poor."
http://thumbsnap.com/v/SohBdsIm.jpg
From Through the Year with Fulton Sheen
http://www.ignatius.com/ViewProd...D=2098&AFID=12&
Peter,
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1) Jesus is the Word. We know Jesus is truth, therefore the Word is truth. They aren't true, they're truth. 1 John 5:6 says, "This is he who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth." We see the Spirit being called truth, and we know Jesus and the Spirit are one, so this thought of Jesus, the Spirit, and the Word (aka the Bible) being truth is perfectly consistent throughout the Bible. I doubt anyone would disagree with this; if you do, I think we have bigger issues than sola scriptura vs the three legged stool.
What do pillars, bulwarks, and foundations do? Simply put, they hold stuff up. And with Peter's comments on *stuff*, this actually fits nicely The RCC has upheld and protected the Word excellently (to the best of our knowledge) since It was entrusted to her. But (you all knew this was coming), what happens when the church ceases to support the Truth? Is it still considered "the pillar and foundation"? Not at all. It has forsaken its role as pillar and foundation.
Paul's statement to Timothy isn't a guarantee that every church ever established in the name of Jesus will always be a pillar and foundation of the truth. Indeed, many churches have departed from the truth and have supported the wicked; these churches cease to be pillars and bulwarks of truth.
To say the church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth" cannot mean that the Truth is somehow dependent on the church to stand. Jesus guaranteed that if the church remained silent, the stones would cry out on His behalf. (Luke 19:40) He was speaking specifically of His disciples, but I think it's acceptable to apply it to the Church since the church is made up of His disciples. So if the church ceases to hold up the truth, another source will. (*cough* the reformation *cough*) The RCC has preserved the truth for centuries as it has carefully guarded the sacred manuscripts. But it has also departed from the truth as it has supported the Inquisition, indulgences, horrific Popes, praying to heavenly saints, worshipping Mary, and claiming any man is spiritually infallible at times.
(cont'd...)
.
(...cont'd)
For a church to be "the pillar and foundation of the truth" doesn't mean one gets to determine what truth is (God has already done that); it simply means that the church is entrusted to uphold what is sacred and true, the Word of God. It doesn't mean the church gets to make rules that contradict the truth, but rather that it should ensure such rules are never enacted.
As we talked last night, my wife pointed out that Paul was talking about "the church of the Living God." Can a church cease to be a church of the Living God? It appears there were churches in Paul's time that had gotten away from the truth. Also if you look at Revelation chapters 2 & 3, Jesus admonishes 5 of the 7 churches and threatens to remove a couple of them. Those churches would cease to be a church of the Living God, and would, therefore, not be the pillar and foundation of the truth.
All that being said, my church is a pillar and a bulwark of the truth, because it upholds, teaches, and propagates the truth. But my church isn't allowed to make rules that contradict scripture, or it'll cease to be a pillar and bulwark of the truth.
.
Grubb:
I am marvelling at your response. That is alot of mental gymnastics. It is written that the gates of hell would not prevail against this bulwark, this foundation of the truth so I don not agree with your assertion tht this bukwark has fallen.
The first thing that came to my mind, though, after reading your post is to ask you what church in non Catholic Cristendom is now the true pillar and foundation of the truth so that I can join it?
Sorry, the bove was from me. Peter
Thanks for the heads up, Ben
Peter
I hope Grubb (as well as others) doesn't mind me adding a comments about something Grubb said. One point I haven't seen anyone address (and it's very possible I just missed it) is where Grubb mentioned "since Paul was always writing letters to correct certain churches' errors. In fact even in Rev 2 & 3 we see that the churches in John's day were filled with error".
Many of Paul's letters were correcting the Christian church of the day. Also, Revelations 2 and 3 calls various churches to correct wrong doctrine.
Why does the "church" need to be corrected like this? If the church is on par with scripture it makes no sense (at least to me).
Why does the "church" need to be corrected like this? If the church is on par with scripture it makes no sense (at least to me).
You're equating Church with the local church, and that's exactly the problem. The local church was breaking away from the unity of the universal Church, and that's where the problems started. The failure in the New Testament churches (as opposed to Israel, which lacked the Holy Spirit and required external correction) comes from people breaking away from Christ's unity into division and heresy (1 Cor. 1:10-11, 11:18-19), while the faithful maintain unity (Rom. 12:16, 16:17-18; Ephesians 4:1-6; Phillipians 2:1-2; 1 Pet. 3:.
the last should be 1 Pet. 3:8
Peter,
I am marvelling at your response. That is alot of mental gymnastics.
Marvel away
It may have sounded like a lot of mental gymnastics, because I tried to be thorough and got long winded. The synopsis is: there is the "Church of the Living God" of which the gates of hell will not prevail. Not every church that's established in the name of Jesus is part of the Church of the Living God.
what church in non Catholic Cristendom is now the true pillar and foundation of the truth so that I can join it?
It doesn't have to be a single denomination. Any church that preaches the Gospel accurately and doesn't willfully add unbiblical doctrine is part of the Church of the Living God. Isn't that how it was early on? Were the churches of Corinth, Ephesus, and Laodicea any less the Church of the Living God, because they weren't RC?
And yet, we know all these churches had significant errors in their doctrine early on which is what prompted letters from Paul or rebukes from Jesus.
.
Any church that preaches the Gospel accurately and doesn't willfully add unbiblical doctrine is part of the Church of the Living God.
Don't pick this apart too much. I was simply trying to come up with a quick, short description of what is required of a Godly church. Even I can find holes in it, and I wrote it.
Thanks for joining in David P. I highly encourage your participation.
.
worshipping Mary????
Grubb, you should know better than that. No true Christian would ever dream of giving "worship" to a mere creature, regardless of how holy or exalted. It is of course right and fitting that we give special honors to those who are worthy. And so we love, honor and venerate Mary, as do we all the saints.
But we only offer sacrifice to God alone, not to the Blessed Virgin, and not to the saints! And that my friend is a crucial distinction! This is how Christians “worship” God, through the offering of sacrifice.
Now depending on which version of the bible one uses, it is possible to speak of a creature legitimately having or receiving "worship" in the presence of others as a proper means of honoring them for their holiness and humility. And it is God himself who teaches us that it is indeed right and just to bestow such "worship" on his saintly servants!
"But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have WORSHIP in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. " Luke 14:10
http://www.biblestudytools.net/O...kjv&
language=en
I'm not on my own copmputer so bear with the lack of flow on my part. Grubb, how would you react to the verse if is actually read scripture is the pillar and foundation of the truth? Can you also give me some idea as to when you think the Church began to fail as the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Peter
Ben M,
I almost didn't phrase it that way knowing it would prompt a reply, and because I've had the "Worshipping Mary" discussion here more than once. I chose to phrase it that way, because many in the RCC outside the U.S. in fact DO worship her.
I would contend that more American RCs than you think fall into Mary worship just as more PTs than I'd like to admit fall into idle worship (by that I mean they've made a profession of faith and believe that's ALL they need to do, and therefore remain idle). It's a fine line between esteeming and worshipping, and I believe the way the RCC is set up makes it much easier to cross that line.
In Mexico, Our Lady of Guadalupe Day (honoring Mary) is bigger than CHRISTmas. My friend from Mexico, who was RC there and became PT here said to me, "What they (RCs in Mexico) do is nothing short of worship."
I hope this doesn't offend. I Pet 3:15b tells us to interact with others "with gentleness and respect." So if I ever phrase something in an offensive manner, I apologize.
As near as I can tell "Mary worship" is a painful fact that the RCC needs to deal with just as "idle worship" is a painful fact the PTC needs to deal with.
.
Peter,
Grubb, how would you react to the verse if is actually read scripture is the pillar and foundation of the truth?
I'm not sure that would sound right. Scripture IS truth. It's a bit redundant to say truth is the foundation of truth. I understand why Paul said that now, I just don't think he's indicating the church is an equal authority to the Bible.
Can you also give me some idea as to when you think the Church began to fail as the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Not really, I wasn't there But seriously, I presume you mean the RCC as I believe the Church of the Living God is still the pillar and foundation of the truth. I've never studied a time-line of what happened when; so I'd have to look at a time-line of events to actually put my finger on a particular time frame. The Inquisitions and Crusades that occurred between 1050 and 1500 were certainly parts of the derailment.
That being said, do I believe that every individual RC & RCC was completely derailed? Not necessarily. Some may have operated independently of Rome in that they didn't support the Inquisitions and Crusades and simply preached the Gospel of Jesus according to the Scriptures.
But to be completely frank, I've never sought to put a particular time frame to it. When do you think it happened? Just kidding. I hope you guys don't mind me attempting humor every now and again.
.
Hi Jonathan and thanks for your comment.
You said, "The local church was breaking away from the unity of the universal Church, and that's where the problems started."
That's where we would have to disagree, I'm sure. You don't get a sense in reading the New Testament that these churches are breaking away from some mother church that's headed by a single individual. Rather, I get a sense that these churches are: seperate - different - autonomous - with different local leaders - BUT - that they are to be unified in doctrine and teaching. I just think this is crucial.
Grubb,
I think a little humor is good for the soul.
As for offending me, don’t worry about it. Just speak your mind. And if something you might say does offends me well, I'll get over it.
"What they (RCs in Mexico) do is nothing short of worship."
That’s a very subjective statement, and one which tells me absolutely nothing about what “they” are actually doing and why, whatever it is they are doing, is considered “worship.”
What would be helpful would be to know just how you define "worship?"
I defined true worship Above (in the strict sense of the word) as the offering of sacrifice to God. Also I showed from scripture, that even God would have us “worship” (in a lesser sense) Mary and the saints.
Btw, did you take a look at that Sheen story? What were your thoughts?
Ben M.
Subjective or not, that's what my friend said. When we were having this conversation on this blog a year or so ago, I looked up Our Lady of Guadalupe Day (OLGD) and learned that it's a day that honors Mary with huge festivals that resemble a cross between Halloween and Mardi Gras. There was also a Priest in America that said in his parish (where there are many Mexican migrants), the turnout for OLGD is bigger than the turnout for CHRISTmas. When people are less likely to miss a day honoring Mary than a day honoring Jesus, what does that tell you about their priorities and who they REALLY revere?
I haven't checked out the Sheen story yet. If I haven't commented on it by Monday, please remind me then.
.
You don't get a sense in reading the New Testament that these churches are breaking away from some mother church that's headed by a single individual. Rather, I get a sense that these churches are: seperate - different - autonomous - with different local leaders - BUT - that they are to be unified in doctrine and teaching. I just think this is crucial.
You've misunderstood me. I'm not talking about a mother church headed by a single individual. That is the result of many centuries of contingent development. But it is the notion of "separate," "different," and "autonomous" that I find difficult to support. That's the attitude that I think was divisive. I don't think they had any concept of "local leaders" in terms of authority; the authority was common and uniform among those that had it.
The people who claimed "local" authority were exactly the ones who created doctrinal divisions in the Church around that authority. The exigencies of these sorts of conflicts led the Church to the office of monarchial bishops, and then, for inter-See disputes, appeal to Rome and the ecumenical council. But the basic idea was very simple: common authority based on Tradition handed down and maintained by unity.
Some may have operated independently of Rome in that they didn't support the Inquisitions and Crusades and simply preached the Gospel of Jesus according to the Scriptures.
Outside of Catholicism and various strains of Eastern Orthodoxy, I think it is safe to say that there were literally no such people. At least, we have no evidence that there were any such people.
Grubb.
Some may have operated independently of Rome in that they didn't support the Inquisitions and Crusades and simply preached the Gospel of Jesus according to the Scriptures.
A protestant bringing up the Inquisition? No offense, but this really is a glaring example of the pot calling the kettle black!
During the worst of the Protestant reign of terror, the “rack was seldom idle” and the sword seldom sheathed.
Luther, in his Against the murderous and thieving hordes of Peasants said:
“So strange are the times that a Prince may merit heaven more certainly by shedding blood than by saying prayers.” Hartmann Grisar, vol. 2, p. 202. http://www.archive.org/details/
g...uther02grisuoft
This bears an uncanny resemblance to what Mohammed said:
“The sword is the key of heaven and hell. A drop of blood in the cause of Allah … is of more avail than two months of fasting and prayer.”
http://www.google.com/search?q=+...l&start=10&
sa=N
HMMMM…
Take a look here also: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...eformation.html
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1) Jesus is the Word. We know Jesus is truth, therefore the Word is truth. They aren't true, they're truth. 1 John 5:6 says, "This is he who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth." We see the Spirit being called truth, and we know Jesus and the Spirit are one, so this thought of Jesus, the Spirit, and the Word (aka the Bible) being truth is perfectly consistent throughout the Bible. I doubt anyone would disagree with this; if you do, I think we have bigger issues than sola scriptura vs the three legged stool.
I doubt what the apostle John had in mind was a bible.
I doubt what the apostle John had in mind was a bible.
I agree, Richard, at least not “bible only” at any rate.
“…the TRUTH, which LIVES IN US and WILL BE WITH US FOREVER.” 2 John 1:2
Here John is telling us very explicitly that “THE TRUTH”:
a) LIVES IN US, not just in a book.
b) WILL BE WITH US FOREVER. Thus we have God's solemn promise that this "TRUTH" will NEVER be lost. And yet oddly enough, the reformers claimed to have "discovered" or rediscovered the "pure gospel," implying of course that this Sacred "TRUTH" had in fact been lost or obscured. Something is definitely not right with this picture.
And a couple of other passages to consider.
"I have MUCH TO WRITE you, but I DO NOT want to do so WITH PEN AND INK, but I hope to come to see you and TALK WITH YOU FACE TO FACE, so that our joy may be complete." 2 John 1:12
"I have MUCH TO WRITE you, but I DO NOT want to do so WITH PEN AND INK. I
hope to see you soon, and WE WILL TALK FACE TO FACE." 3 John 1:13-14
Why are these so difficult for some folks to accept?
Ben & Richard,
(Richard) I doubt what the apostle John had in mind was a bible.
(Ben) I agree, Richard, at least not “bible only” at any rate.
He may not have had in mind the NT Bible since it hadn't been compiled, but he was referring to the Word of God which we believe the Bible to be once it was written down. It sounds as though Ben agrees with my initial statement somewhat since he said, "at least not 'bible only'." I agree the Word is in us to some degree. James said, "Accept the Word planted in you which can save you." (James 1:21)
A protestant bringing up the Inquisition? No offense, but this really is a glaring example of the pot calling the kettle black!
But the PTC doesn't claim to be infallible; the RCC does. I can denounce horrible things PT churches have done, because I don't consider them perfect. RCs have to be very careful which RCC actions it denounces, because the RCC is considered infallible in some respects. Indeed to be one of the 3 legs in the "stool", it should be far more "perfect" than it has been. Don't you agree?
We know the Word is inerrant, but we can't say the same for the Pope or the RCC.
.
He may not have had in mind the NT Bible since it hadn't been compiled, but he was referring to the Word of God which we believe the Bible to be once it was written down. It sounds as though Ben agrees with my initial statement somewhat since he said, "at least not 'bible only'." I agree the Word is in us to some degree. James said, "Accept the Word planted in you which can save you." (James 1:21)
I have a hard time considering Scripture to be God. God breathed; yes. But God, in the beginning? I dunno about that.
I have to think a lttle more about the James 1:21 verse.
Please don't take offence to this next statement; because I know that it doesn't reflect you. But I can see how and why the Word of Faith teaching has come into being what it is.
There seems to be too much emphasis on the Scripture being the power of the word rather than the power being the word, which is Christ.
Re: your last paragraph, the Catholic church does not claim to be sinless. The pope has in fact asked for forgiveness for those who in the name of Christ and his church have sinned.
Sorry about not setting apart the first paragraph above. It belongs to Grubb.
Hi Grubb,
But the PTC doesn't claim to be infallible; the RCC does.
Well, I'm not so sure that is totally accurate; the reformers made some pretty amazing statements regarding their own authority and infallibility. Their claim that they and they alone had the “pure gospel” for example, seems to me perilously close to a declaration of infallibility.
I can denounce horrible things PT churches have done, because I don't consider them perfect.
So could I!
But all kidding aside, the issue is not so much about perfection as about hypocrisy. The injustices of the “Protestant inquisition” were certainly every bit as bad, if not worse, than those (often exaggerated) injustices of the Catholic inquisition.
Remember also the Catholic church never claimed perfection or infallibility for her members, only for her teachings. And these teachings, having been directly received from the apostles, have ever since been handed down in an unbroken succession, without adulteration.
But apart from the above, what I would really like to know is how you would answer the following question:
When was the foundation of the Church laid, in the first century, or the sixteenth?
Richard,
I understand the RCC doesn't claim to be perfect; I tried to be clear about that when I said, "because the RCC is considered infallible in some respects." I'm not exactly sure to what degree the RCC is considered infallible, but Ben M made it sound as though they're considered infallible in their teaching of doctrine. And the Pope is considered infallible in his Papal decrees.
These are two VERY presumptuous claims in my opinion. I don't know all the papal decrees, but I've heard some of the RCC's teachings (since I was RC for 25 years), and they don't appear to be infallible. There's no biblical teaching that says there will be a man who is infallible ex-cathedra or that the church will be infallible in her teaching. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The churches in Peter's & Paul's day had many erroneous teachings that had to be corrected.
You would think Jesus, Peter, Paul, or Luke would have mentioned it at least once if they believed there was a person who was infallible regarding doctrine interpretation (aka papal decrees) wouldn't you?
.
Ben M.
On which teachings is the RCC infallible? Requiring priests to be celibate? That wasn't an original teaching. On praying to heavenly saints? That's not an original teaching. On revering Mary more than Jesus in Mexico? I'm CERTAIN that wasn't an original teaching. How do we know when the RCC is teaching infallibly and when what they're teaching is fallible and subject to change?
The foundation for the Church was laid in the first century. But just like many buildings, the foundation has remained strong and firm, while the building atop of it has decayed and needs repair.
.
Grubb:These are two VERY presumptuous claims in my opinion. I don't know all the papal decrees, but I've heard some of the RCC's teachings (since I was RC for 25 years), and they don't appear to be infallible. There's no biblical teaching that says there will be a man who is infallible ex-cathedra or that the church will be infallible in her teaching. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The churches in Peter's & Paul's day had many erroneous teachings that had to be corrected.
You would think Jesus, Peter, Paul, or Luke would have mentioned it at least once if they believed there was a person who was infallible regarding doctrine interpretation (aka papal decrees) wouldn't you?
A couple of things. First, aside from the fact that this would bring us back to the authority issue concerning what is Scriptural teaching and what is not (not to mention that I personally do not see a disconnect between what the Scriptures teaches and what the Catholic Church teaches) there is the fact that you do believe in infallibility. We don't have a life story of Luke, Paul or Peter, yet I don't think it is a far stretch of the imagination to believe that they erred; one striking example is Paul's rebuke of Peter. Yet, their writings are beyond suspicion, inerrant.
This is what we claim for the Church. It's a claim based on apostolic (and historical) example and Scriptural teaching.
If the Church cannot be trusted, or ceases to teach what is and is not true, then what is left? Do we need to lay another foundation?
The church is being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Each member is a part of the body. The holy Spirit gives some gifts, one is the gift to teach.
My contention is this; if the foundation is forsaken then everyone must become a teacher, teaching themselves what is apostolic and what is truth. The foundation is then not built upon the apostles and prophets, or on Christ, but on what we believe they taught.
Argument:
Don't you then have to teach yourself that the (Catholic) church is this building built on this foundation?
Answer:/b>
If I do; is this then the Church's fault? By no means. There are many voices; just as many went out. We are in no better position today than we would have been two thousand years ago. We would still have to choose for ourselves who to follow, whether it be Simon Peter or Simon Magus, each claiming to be someone of authority.
We believe Simon Peter because we believe that Jesus gave him authority. We believe what Peter taught is true, not because we've studied and found him to be true; rather we believe because the Word made flesh commanded him to feed his sheep (and this food I hunger for).
html can be dangerous in the wrong hands
That was a very bold statement indeed, Richard!
LOL
"But on some points I have written to you very BOLDLY by way of reminder . . ."
(Romans 15:15)
Grubb,
On which teachings is the RCC infallible? Requiring priests to be celibate? That wasn't an original teaching. On praying to heavenly saints? That's not an original teaching. On revering Mary more than Jesus in Mexico? I'm CERTAIN that wasn't an original teaching. How do we know when the RCC is teaching infallibly and when what they're teaching is fallible and subject to change?
I honestly do appreciate you concerns about infallibility and prayer to the saints etc, but I’m just not sure how to effectively respond to them.
The main reason for this I think has to do with the fundamentally different way in which each of us approaches religion. These differences might be summarized thus:
1.Protestantism focuses on a BOOK, albeit a sacred book.
2.Catholicism on the other hand, focuses first and foremost, on a PERSON (CHRIST and His Bride, the Church, which is the “FULLNESS OF HIM.” Eph. 1:23).
Now I know this is an oversimplification, but this is essentially how I see the problem.
And I’m convinced that having a better acquaintance with each other’s basic religious outlook (for lack of a better word a the moment) is the best way of breaking the current impasse. So if you get a chance you might let me know if you agree with the above assessment of our differences.
Grubb,
Greetings and my hopes for the health of you and your family. I know that I am entering this discussion late, so if I repeat something that someone else has already covered or dredge up old data which you've moved beyond, I apologize in advance.
You write favorably about Tradition when it comes to the formation of the canon of Scripture by saying,
My position is that the early church fathers who canonized the Bible had the Apostolic Tradition (not the RC tradition) and had the authority to determine what was and wasn't canon material,
and,
It may sound as though I brought up a passage that supports tradition, and in part it does. But I've acknowledged that early on oral tradition was critical.
Now to be certain that I don't take you out of context, you did qualify these statements by stating that Tradition only seems (in your mind) to be binding for the formation of the Scriptures and, once collected, the Scriptures cause Tradition to be retired. I have several problems with this particular context and the artificial limits it places on Tradition.
1. Neither source to which you appeal, Scripture nor Tradition, has this proposed formerly active and now retired Tradition. Instead, they each confirm the unique value of the other. Scripture affirms the authority of the Church to define doctrine, settle disputes, and even to hold things as bound in Heaven.
2. The same ECFs who had Apostolic Tradtion and authority also believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, a closed Eucharistic communion, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the efficacy of sacraments, a doctrinally united world-wide Church that speaks with "one voice" (Irenaeus), and confirming their decision (at least on the contents of the Scripture) with Rome. Neither Tradition, nor Scripture, gives even the hint that they would be accurately protected by the Holy Spirit in the handing on of only the Scriptures and be so incredibly "wrong" on all of these other items of Tradition which you reject. Thus, your assertion begs the question, if they were not protected with all those other items, were they actually able to accurately hand on the Scripture?
3. You acknowledge that today there may exist additions and subtractions from the original manuscripts. This should be very problematic for you. Since we have none of the original autographs, we can at best make only educated guesses as to what has been added or subtracted. I believe that those educated guesses are extremely accurate - accurate enough that nothing has truly been lost from the deposit of Scripture. However, my belief is woefully inadequate at determining what has been added/subtracted, where that addition/subtraction has taken place, or if today's manuscripts contain the Truth that the Holy Spirit wants contained in the Scripture. Your belief is equally inadequate. Thus, the a
(cont)
Thus, the admission to the existence of any addition or subtraction from the originals should cause you to doubt the entire deposit (since you can't say exactly where the error is, nor how profound it is). However, with the living Tradition of the Church, protected and guided by the Holy Spirit, we are assured that the Truth is proclaimed to us even today in spite of any possible additions or subtractions to the originals, regardless of when said change took place. I think this is what Jonathan Prejean was getting at in his answer to you when he said that additions and subtractions don't really matter from our mindset. But a "retired" Tradition leaves doubt.
4. The deuterocanonicals represent another problem. The Tradition to which you appeal included them. Even if you say that the correct understanding of the Tradition is to be found in Jerome (for the record, I stay with Trent), I do not see them (deuteros) being read in PT churches even for the "edification" of the people. So basically, the Tradition claimed is not followed.
(As an aside, I find it curious that you accept the Tradition of Sunday worship [vs the Sabbath] which has less Scriptural support than the Tradition of the Real Presence in the Eucharist.)
When it comes to "idol worship" (for RCs) and "idle worship" (for PTs), those are red herrings. To judge a belief system wrong based on those who don't accurately follow its teaching(s) is a logical fallacy.
I'm not going to get into the pillar/bulwark/foundation discussion (at least not right now ). But I will note that Scripture in many places refers to the authority of the Church. You even acknowledge this authoritative church when you speak of learning to tithe and sacrificial giving. However, you seem to interchange local church with universal church. When you (and David P) bring up the (individual, local) churches in Revelation or the 1 Corinthians correcting doctrinal error in the (individual, local) church there, and extrapolate it to the universal Church being in doctrinal error, this interchange becomes obvious.
Consider this. If the belief in an authoritative local church (as stated succinctly by David P, and I think is also believed by you) is what is truly portrayed in the Scripture, then you would probably be correct in your belief about Tradition actually being tradition and not binding. However, it also means that the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) overstepped its bounds. At most its decision could only have been binding on the local churches with representatives present. Furthermore, the Judaizers would be allowed to dissent and set up their own authoritative local churches where circumcision was required prior to becoming Christian. Neither of the letters to the Corinthians would be binding upon the local church in Thessolonika.
However, the Council of Jerusalem was held and each of the epistles and Gospels written with the underlyi
However, the Council of Jerusalem was held and each of the epistles and Gospels written with the underlying premise that the one authoritative church is the universal Church (described very well by Irenaeus in Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 13 - for a reference back to Tradition ). That the Universal Church receives the protection of the Holy Spirit is as obvious as the Scriptures being God-breathed. Remember that the Church is the Body of Christ (see 1 Cor 12 [the whole chapter, but especially v27-28 and v12], Eph 4:11-15 [with allusion in 3:6], Col 1:24, and Rom 12:4-8 ). While individuals may fail at times, it is impossible for the Church to be unfaithful to the Truth. This would mean that the Body of Christ became unfaithful to the Word made Flesh.
In His Name,
Jamie,
That was a very thoughtful post. My only complaint is that you didn't use enough bold lettering.
Commenting by HaloScan
