Posted on 04/26/2005 9:00:20 AM PDT by TheTruthess
[Quote] Everything from light to man wa craated by the irrestible power of an Almighty God in 144 hours[/Quote]
And you have seen me mention neither. My association with these doctrines is assumed on your part. I know it's popular to label one's beliefs according to the terminology of man, but I merely believe the Bible to be the word of God and look to it for my information.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
As to my comment concerning your using extra-biblical references for your understanding of the Trinity, you proved as much when you cited uninspired writers. That was merely my point as to our disagreement on this topic is that I am using scripture and you are adding other references to your understanding.
I said "...Hmm. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. Where exactly can I find those in the Bible? Are these doctrines of man?"
You replied "...And you have seen me mention neither. My association with these doctrines is assumed on your part"
I would like to humbly disagree with your reply. Here is what you wrote earlier...
"I don't know where you're getting your information from but it's definately not the Bible"
This implies that the Bible is the sole source of knowledge about God. And quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 proves your doctrine. I would first like to say this verse says nothing about Sola Scriptura, The Bible Alone. It is profitable, not all-inclusive.
I would disagree with you that the Bible contains the only truth that we can know. Nowhere does the Bible make this claim. Time and again, the Bible does tell us to hold onto the Traditions passed down - some orally, some written. Where does the Bible tell us to ignore this rule and adhere only to written Traditions? This is where Sola Scriptura fails.
"As to my comment concerning your using extra-biblical references for your understanding of the Trinity, you proved as much when you cited uninspired writers"
You are correct, these writers are uninspired. However, these Fathers made their formulations based on Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition (defined as "how do I interpret Scripture correctly"). Using these, the Councils of Nicea infallibly defined the very limited knowledge that we have about Jesus and His relationship to the Father. The Holy Spirit guarantees this as He did at the Council of Jerusalem noted in Acts 15 "it seemed good to us AND the Holy Spirit". Christ promised the Spirit would be guiding us always, so there is no reason to presume that only the Council of Jerusalem is infallible. I believe your logic on why the Church Councils are unacceptable is false.
Brother in Christ
Here we go with the man-made labels again. I don't use the 'Sola Scriptura' naming convention label - though I know what it means - due to the fact that most people who claim the label don't actually practice it. I find it easier to let the 'Word of God' be the word of God. But you have stated exactly where the traditions of men fail; in that they ignore or add to the Bible.
I had a teacher once who gave us a final exam and it covered topics that he had not discussed with us in class nor assigned as reading requirements. I didn't think that was fair. Maybe you do.
This all started concerning the differences in understanding of the concept of the trinity. I stated that you used extra-biblical references and you have agreed that this was true (our difference of opinion as to their worthiness, nonwithstanding). I just thought it harsh to label someone a heretic for using different language than is accepted by man's doctrine. If the authors concept of the trinity comes from a proper reading of God's word, without the knowledge of uninspired men, then I suspect he'll be okay on judgement day. Good Day.
"Here we go with the man-made labels again"
I apologizing for reciprocating in what you started. It appears that I was correct in my assumption.
"I had a teacher once who gave us a final exam and it covered topics that he had not discussed with us in class nor assigned as reading requirements. I didn't think that was fair. Maybe you do."
Another comment, no doubt, on the merit of Bible Alone.
It seems you have a misunderstanding of the Catholic position. Dogma is the defining of revelation already made, implicitly or explicitly, in Scripture and the interpretation of the Scripture (which I have named "Apostolic Tradition). We don't make stuff up, as you say. And of course, you failed to answer my question regarding WHERE exactly does it say all information about God must be written in the Bible.
If I may add to your analogy, you choose to study your textbook alone, and I will study the lecture notes, homework assignments, and the textbook, noting that there is no contradiction between them. Likely, I will have a better understanding of the subject at hand than you would.
I continue to stand by my criticism of the above author's understanding of the Trinity. There are not Three Beings, but One. And also, the Divine Nature did not suffer or become restricted on account of the Incarnation.
Can we agree on that?
Brother in Christ
I have just re-read all of my posts. I do not believe I labeled anyone. Other than using the phrases 'doctrines of man' and 'uninspired writers', which are factual descriptions and not man-made labels. If I have made any untrue assumptions, I apologize.
Another comment, no doubt, on the merit of Bible Alone.
Of course I use the Bible alone, I have never stated anything else. But when you capitalize both words as in 'Bible Alone' or use 'Sola Scriptura' you are using what should be a description as a label. As I stated, most who claim these labels don't actually practice them. I refuse to be included in those groups. I admit that could be considered a peeve of mine, but so be it.
And of course, you failed to answer my question regarding WHERE exactly does it say all information about God must be written in the Bible.
It's just simple logic. How can we know anything about God except through divine revelation. As I don't believe in post-apostolic revelation nor in apostolic succession, for me, there is no other possibility.
If I may add to your analogy, you choose to study your textbook alone, and I will study the lecture notes, homework assignments, and the textbook, noting that there is no contradiction between them. Likely, I will have a better understanding of the subject at hand than you would.
I think you missed the point. It was not about who had the better understanding but whether the teacher was fair and just for testing us on information we had not been made aware of. My point is that I am confident to stand by the Word of God as our judgement, regardless of how much 'better' another's understanding is than mine (and believe me, there are many).
John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
I continue to stand by my criticism of the above author's understanding of the Trinity. There are not Three Beings, but One. And also, the Divine Nature did not suffer or become restricted on account of the Incarnation.
I also didn't like his phrasing and agree our understanding (yes - believe it or not - I am in agreement with you on this subject) is better stated. But I felt the critcism should be in that respect as opposed to making judgements on one as being a false teacher (heretic is the word I believe you used). This is why I attempted to explain what I thought he was trying to say. Not that I hold it as the best explanation, but I just thought I could see where he was coming from on this one and still am confident his understanding will not hurt him one bit in the judgement.
First of all, I would like to commend you for keeping this conversation friendly. I see now my use of the word heretic, though technically correct, was a bit out of place, especially given the fact that the author never had a chance to respond. We agree that one must be careful when we write or teach about the faith. Our practice of it is much simpler - we just do it - rather than trying to explain it. I work in a technical field that sometimes requires me to write technical explanations on how to do maintenance. Try to imagine the difference between using a spoon to eat corn flakes, and then try to write EXACTLY how to do it! Perhaps the idea of why dogmatic declarations take so long to get down on paper is best explained by that!
You said "...Of course I use the Bible alone, I have never stated anything else. But when you capitalize both words as in 'Bible Alone' or use 'Sola Scriptura' you are using what should be a description as a label. As I stated, most who claim these labels don't actually practice them. I refuse to be included in those groups. I admit that could be considered a peeve of mine, but so be it."
I am not sure exactly what you mean here. I presumed correctly that you believe in using the Bible alone, although you don't like the label because some don't actually practice it? In corresponding with other Protestants, I agree that many claim to follow it, but don't practice it. That is why I find this an illogical idea (Bible Alone). We both agree that WHAT is Scripture came from outside the Bible, right? This, plus my statements about oral tradition that still remain in effect as binding are difficult to refute for Protestants. A clarification would be appreciated by what you mean regarding the nuances of the above paragraph.
"How can we know anything about God except through divine revelation. As I don't believe in post-apostolic revelation nor in apostolic succession, for me, there is no other possibility."
Fair enough. I would like to present to you two things: First, the Church itself believed in apostolic succession, even seen in the Pastoral Epistles themselves. Secondly, and not trying to be a smart guy, but because one doesn't believe something doesn't make it not true, correct? I would challenge you to read what the first couple of generations believed in to get a good idea of what the Church was like, rather than being anachronistic and presuming that the first Church had distinctly Protestant beliefs (such as Bible alone). The Eucharist is a case in point. While these men were not infallible as individuals, it is hard to believe that the first generation following the Apostles could get it so wrong.
The idea of faith is that we trust someone. In this case, we are trusting the Early Church to hand down to us the Word of God. If we can trust them to give us the Scripture (recall, there are now Gnostic scriptures floating around, as seen in Divinci Code - really, who is to say that they are not the actual Scriptures - unless we don't have faith in that claim) correctly and completely, we should also trust that they worshiped, believed, and defined our faith correctly. We have faith in this because it is backed up by the promise Jesus gave to us that He would be with us always and the Spirit would be sent to us. In other words, God Himself is backing up these teachings (so we believe)
"It was not about who had the better understanding but whether the teacher was fair and just for testing us on information we had not been made aware of."
OK. There is a fine line between being ignorant of teachings and refusal to accept teachings revealed (considering Christianity is a revealed religion, it is important that we determine our ultimate source). I also believe (as does the Church) that such ignorant people who are unaware of the Church will be judged as such on what they know and how they lived their lives. That is why the Church can reach out to Muslims, for example. But when one knows the teachings of the Church and refuses to believe them, that is another story. There is the fine line.
"But I felt the critcism should be in that respect as opposed to making judgements on one as being a false teacher (heretic is the word I believe you used)"
I humbly ask for the apology of anyone who was offended by my careless use of the word "heretic". It was hasty, and it would have been better to point out the error, without the judgement. Thank you for your correction, brother.
In Christ
As Dennis Prager often says; "It's more important to have clarity than agreement". I'm glad we have had this chance to clarify each others positions.
Granted my resisitance to labels may seem strange, but in order to clarify I must object (for sake of example only) once again to your use of one. I do not consider myself a 'Protestant'. I am protesting nothing. I consider myself a Christian (Acts 11:26) only. I pattern my worship and beliefs after those of the first century church. As it was delivered by the Holy Spirit, it was recorded for us. As I have already stated my postion on revelation, these two should logically equate to an insistance on book, chapter and verse for what is to be bound religiously.
The Bible as God's revealed word must be both sufficent and efficient for our salvation. If a doctrine states what the Bible already states, it is at best redundant; if it states something different than the Bible, it is superfluous to our salvation. I believe God is best suited to tell us his desires, and we are best advised to follow them. Thus my comment about letting the 'Word of God' be the word of God.
Most of the labels that I resist actually come from the different 'isms' developed by men and not from the Bible. Having left a man-made religion for the Lord's church, I no longer wish to be associated with those labels. It is in fact these labels that many times blind believers to the truth. Many who profess belief follow after men rather than God. As often happens, the meaning of a phrase (Sola Scriptura) is most often lost as it is used as an identifier among those of like mind; with little concern as to whether it is actually followed.
I hope this clarifies my position.
No, you're not prodding at all. I hope to have more time to discuss this with you next week. I don't have much more time online today or this weekend.
Let me be more clear about one thing. It's not what all early christians believed that I follow - as I am sure you will agree there was heresy in place even as the apostles wrote. It is that which the Holy Spirit delivered to the Apostles that I follow, the inspired word of God. I don't consider the above mention people as inspired (as I also believe from previous comments you would also agree).
My studies have shown that not even the above authors were in agreement with each other on the various topics on which they wrote, nor are they always in agreement with all roman catholic positions as they now stand. I do not see the Holy Spirit as the author of such confusion. But must charge it to men not enduring sound doctrine and changing such to suit their itching ears.
As I stated, I believe the Word of God to be sufficent for salvation, and to go beyond what is written is to be done at great peril. I previously followed and taught the doctrines of man as the word of God - the many 'isms' I spoke of earlier. Now I simply follow the Bible. Before, I worshiped God as I was taught by some man-made organization and was told would please Him, now I worship Him as He has revealed He desires to be worshipped. I don't know how many thousands-word 'biblical' articles I see posted on this forum without a single Bible verse associated. It is because many are following men rather than God. And it is my fear that they are doing so at the expense of their soul. It is for this reason I deny such labels.
Until next time.
Only in his revealed word. Here's a simple analogy. How would you identify someone you were looking for to the police? You would describe them and they would be found when the description matched their actual appearance. How can we find the Lord's church? It is described in his word. Match a body of believers to that description and you've found them.
“It's not what all early christians believed that I follow …It is that which the Holy Spirit delivered to the Apostles that I follow, the inspired word of God.”
Of course. But ALL heretics had access to the same Scriptures that the orthodox Christians had. The Church Fathers had to deal with the heretics who used Scriptures against the intent of the inspired authors. Here is one of MANY examples of these Fathers mentioning such abuse of Scripture:
CHAPTER. XV.--HERETICS NOT TO BE ALLOWED TO ARGUE OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES. THE SCRIPTURES, IN FACT, DO NOT BELONG TO THEM.
We are therefore come to (the gist of) our position; for at this point we were aiming, and for this we were preparing in the preamble of our address (which we have just completed),--so that we may now join issue on the contention to which our adversaries challenge us. They put forward the Scriptures, and by this insolence of theirs they at once influence some. In the encounter itself, however, they weary the strong, they catch the weak, and dismiss waverers with a doubt. Accordingly, we oppose to them this step above ,all others, of not admitting them to any discussion of the Scriptures. If in these lie their resources, before they can use them, it ought to be clearly seen to whom belongs the possession of the Scriptures, that none may be admitted to the use thereof who has no title at all to the privilege. (From The Prescriptions Against Heretics, Tertullian ca. 200 AD.)
I think we can agree that INTERPRETATION of Scripture is MORE IMPORTANT than the actual writings themselves! To take an example, when if someone began to say that Jesus was not really God, but an archangel. This is exactly what Arius, a heretical priest (and founder of Arianism) stated (and the Jehovah Witnesses today...). One of the key verses the Fathers applied to the Logos was Proverbs 8:22-31. The verse questioned by Arius was "The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago” {Proverbs 8:22}. You can see that one CAN say “before he was begotten (the Logos) or created or ordained or established, he did not exist”. This is a valid Scriptural interpretation of that series of verses, and is exactly what Arius of Alexandria wrote in a letter to Eusebius, a Catholic bishop. According to Arius, the Logos was “alien and unlike in all respects to the essence and selfhood of the Father”.
Can you see what is happening? Someone is challenging the established, unwritten belief (Tradition) of the Church!!! Someone is saying that Jesus is not God! That he is at best an angel. According to Gal 3:19, the law of Moses had been “ordained by angels through an intermediary”. “Let us make man” of Genesis 1:26 can be seen as God the Father speaking to angels. This mediator role of the angels could be broadened to include the Logos as the chief among them. Our worship of Jesus would then be idolatry – only God deserves worship! And so the battle began between Arianism and Catholicism. Can you see the need for a guardian of the faith passed down by the Apostles?
The point of this is that Scripture interpretation MUST be done correctly to obtain the meaning of WHAT IS God’s Word to us! Here is where Apostolic Tradition, which you dismiss right now, is very important. It is part and parcel of the Word of God! God’s revelation to us includes His Words written, and their meaning as well!
“I don't consider the above mention people as inspired (as I also believe from previous comments you would also agree).”
Yes. Individual Church Fathers are not inspired. However, I would again take you back to Acts 15. Before there was a New Testament. First, there was a question whether Gentile converts had to become circumcised or whether they had to refrain from non-kosher meats. Read Acts 10, the dream of Peter, especially “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean” {10:14}. Despite receiving the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, despite hearing Jesus teach about how meat does not make a man unclean, there were a number of Christians, including Peter, who still followed the customs and ways of the Jews! Note the disagreements between the disciples “…there had been much debate” {Acts 15:6}. Note what they did next. Peter stood up and declared that the Mosaic Law was a burden that was not necessary to lay upon the Gentiles. He went AGAINST Scripture and the Tradition of the Pharisees given to them by Abraham and Moses! Circumcision was no longer necessary to be saved! What a momentous decision! Can you imagine being there? There in Scripture, the Spirit is guarding binding decisions made by the Fathers. A promise given to them in Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 – the power to bind and loosen. They used the power given to them by Jesus.
These men were either very arrogant, or understood that God Himself was guiding them to declare such a thing. We agree it was the latter “and it seemed good to us AND the Holy Spirit” (Acts 15:28). So, “…since we have heard that certain persons who have gone out from us, though with no instructions from us, have said things to disturb you and have unsettled your minds, we have decided unanimously to choose representatives and send them to you…"(Acts 15:24-25). Here, we see that the Church leaders are binding ALL Christians to uphold this determination.
Thus, Scripture is not meant for private interpretation; interpretation of Scripture is to be done within the paradigm of the Tradition given to the Apostles and applied to the entire Church. And it is all in Scripture.
Does this power end? Once the Apostles die out, does the Spirit or Jesus leave? No. Jesus promised “I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Mt 28:20). At John 15:16, Jesus says “I will ask my Father for another Advocate (Spirit) to be with you forever”. So God Himself is promising to protect His Apostles and their successors forever. We see this was the understanding of the leaders of the Church at Jerusalem in Acts 15 (good to us and the Spirit), and at the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, etc. They, too, knew that the Spirit and Jesus was guarding them. While an individual could be wrong, once they came together and acted to make a binding decision on all the Church with the intent to define what the Scriptures meant (due to challenges to Tradition, such as Arius above), God was there protecting the teachings of His Church. This is what the Church has ALWAYS believed. So looking at one Father’s misplaced theology is inconsequential to the power of the Councils with the Bishop of Rome. There is no confusion once binding decisions are being made with the understanding that the Holy Spirit is guarding the teachings.
“As I stated, I believe the Word of God to be sufficent for salvation, and to go beyond what is written is to be done at great peril.
I agree with that. To go beyond what is written, IMPLIED or EXPLICIT, is wrong. We believe that all doctrines have been gradually revealed for definition, although all revelation was initially given to the Apostles. The example was eating the cereal and actually writing the detailed process. It takes longer and more thought to do the latter. The former comes naturally. Hence the ancient saying “lex orendi, lex credendi”, how we pray is how we believe. What was passed down is what we believe.
“I don't know how many thousands-word 'biblical' articles I see posted on this forum without a single Bible verse associated. It is because many are following men rather than God”
Brother, if you can show me in the Bible a verse where it says anything to the effect that one must believe ONLY what is in the Bible, then you will have advanced beyond them. If you can tell me where the canon of books – what IS Scripture – is located within the Bible, you have proven your point. However, you cannot. I am sorry to say that you are also following a man-made tradition in the first case. In the second case (the canon), you are relying on FALLIBLE MEN (guided by the Holy Spirit) to tell you what books ARE Scripture. Why isn’t the Gospel of Thomas in our canon? Why is Jude or the Acts of the Apostles in there? Or Philemon? What isn’t the First Letter of Clement? We both disbelieve the Gnostic Gospel mentioned in the Da Vinci Code (I presume). Who is to say they are wrong? Because we believe the truths handed down from the Catholic church, the Apostolic succession, not men who cannot trace their lineage to the Apostles (or claim to trace it to an obscure Apostle from 200 years after the fact). What I am getting at is you wouldn’t know what the Bible even IS if it weren’t for these men who have guarded the teachings of Jesus Christ and have passed it down to us today!
I have given you much to consider. However, history has shown me that the parable of the mustard seed is an apt one for the Church. The seed planted by Christ is the SAME entity, but looks different then 2000 years ago. It is visible, containing weeds and wheat, the good and bad of the community, not an invisible body of holy people only. There IS no other Church one could point to and say – that is the Church that Christ established. If we believe Jesus promise that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against this visible organization, then we can see it only in the Catholic Church. The Glorified Body of Christ will not descend until the end of time. Until then, we have the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church on earth, seen fully (but not entirely!) within the Catholic Church. You have been baptized in the name of the Trinity (I presume). Whether you know it or not, you hold to Catholic teachings, such as the Incarnation and the Trinity. Your heart burns within you as He opens the Scripture to you (cf. Luke 24:32), but you don't know Christ through the breaking of the bread (cf. Luke 24:35). Of course, this is why Catholics refer to non-Catholic Christians as “separated brothers”. So truthfully, you are a...
Brother in Christ
I noticed that in this thread you have again mentioned the events described in Acts 15 as an example of “the Church” revealing something not already revealed in Scripture. I tried (obviously unsuccessfully) to point out to you that Peter’s statements regarding circumcision were by no means a new revelation. The Apostles had been spreading the Gospel years before the events recorded in Acts 15. It is a matter of fact that Paul was in Jerusalem to correct the false teachings of “a sect of the Pharisees” from Jerusalem who refused to believe that Jesus Christ represented the new covenant (or law). He describes the nature of his visit in his letter to the Galatians. There is absolutely NO doubt that he understood the old law (including circumcision) no longer bound Christians. Read Galatians 2:4-10 and you will see that there is nothing Peter said in Jerusalem that in any way changed what Paul was already teaching to the growing Christian Church in the decade previous.
You go on to reference Acts 15:6 to show there was “much debate” (also translated as “questioning” or “discussion”). But among the Apostles, there was none, and first Peter and then James confirmed Paul’s message and explained the “correct” answer to the assembled elders. Peter references the Divine revelation described in Acts 10 (the conversion of Cornelius), and James then quotes Amos 9:11-12, to prove that what Peter experienced agreed with the words of the prophets (Scripture). To claim that Peter was somehow revealing a truth that was previously unknown is to deny the previous work of Paul (and Peter) among the Gentiles, the revelation from God to Peter concerning the cleansing of the Gentiles in Acts 10, and the words of the prophets recorded in Amos. It also ignores the entire Gospel of Christ being the “New Covenant” which was already being taught to the growing church in both the East and West. Finally, the fact that ALL these events are actually recorded in what we all agree is God breathed Scripture makes them an invalid proof that tradition is required to understand the Word or Will of God. It was understood even at that time, that the writings of the Apostles were considered inspired and Scriptural. In 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter describes ALL of Paul’s epistles as Scripture. These men are the authors of Scripture. Not later day interpreters. I think it would be more useful to your argument to reference an Apostolic tradition that cannot be found in the written Word.
First, hello again. I appreciate your comments regarding the tone of our postings. It is unfortunate that our previous threads ended when they did, as a lot of work went into them, and somehow, I feel we didn't conclude them. I suppose we have to agree to disagree.
Now to your comments (which I appreciate).
"I tried (obviously unsuccessfully) to point out to you that Peter’s statements regarding circumcision were by no means a new revelation. The Apostles had been spreading the Gospel years before the events recorded in Acts 15."
This is one of the subjects that was an offshoot on our previous discussion that we never concluded. And while I agree that Peter was not given new revelation, it was apparent that there was NOT total agreement as you imply regarding this question. First of all, you omit the verse where Peter in Acts 10 says "I never ate profane meat". He STILL was practicing the customs of Judaism in this case. Secondly, Paul confronts him later on this. Whether this happened before or after Acts 15, I don't know. In that vein, much of the writings of the Pauline Corpus were written AFTER Acts 15, so you are chronologically incorrect to point to these latter writings to prove the teachings of the Apostles BEFORE Acts 15.
While we know what Jesus taught the Apostles regarding the eating of unclean meat, it was apparent in their actions that they were not yet taking this teaching seriously. The fact that there was a Jewish-Christian faction oppposing this idea of Paul and Barnabas proves this. And Peter himself, probably James and the others, were also remaining within this old custom. The necessity of God sending a dream to Peter was the breakout message to the early Church, don't you think?
"But among the Apostles, there was none, and first Peter and then James confirmed Paul’s message and explained the “correct” answer to the assembled elders."
This came only after the dream of Peter and he explained his baptism of Cornelius. It is obvious that the Apostles were not teaching this before Cornelius was baptized.
"Finally, the fact that ALL these events are actually recorded in what we all agree is God breathed Scripture makes them an invalid proof that tradition is required to understand the Word or Will of God."
You are forgetting that there was no "Word of God" written yet on the subject at hand!!! This was all done before the NT was written. What Scripture did the Apostles use to base their argument that non-kosher meat was OK? What Scripture basis did Peter use to say that circumcision was no longer required? "It seemed good to the us and the Holy Spirit" - that was their basis. And that is the basis that the Church continues to use when defining what the Church is to believe, teach, and proclaim. Why would you say that God no longer sends His Holy Spirit to aid us in such matters? Why stop at Acts 15? This goes against the written Word of God (Mt. 28:20 and Jn 15:16, for example).
"In 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter describes ALL of Paul’s epistles as Scripture."
Even if I was not to argue that statement, which letters were written by Paul? Can we say, without using Tradition, which letters are actually from Paul. We have no originals, Paul was concerned about forgeries in several verses (I'll get them later if you want actual verses, I don't have them handy now). Only a few actually state that Paul wrote them. So you are relying on extra-Biblical tradition to tell you which letters are Scripture! Who wrote the Gospels? Who wrote Acts? Hebrews? Etc... Your basis of the content of the NT is entirely based on a circular argument, totally ignoring that tradition is how we can know what books are rightfully placed (and none left out).
"I think it would be more useful to your argument to reference an Apostolic tradition that cannot be found in the written Word"
How about the correct way to interpret Scripture? My long previous post regarding Arianism explains the danger of presuming that private interpretation can be done. Peter tells us this in his epistle as well. I would like to tell you, also, that all teachings of the Catholic Church that have been defined are found within Scripture, either implied or explicit. Apostolic Tradition and Scripture are taken as part of God's Word. We use both so that we know what we are to believe, teach, and to proclaim. Arianism is a perfect example of relying on human ration and Scripture alone without the use of Apostolic Tradition.
Brother in Christ
With regard to this latest topic, we will most likely have to agree to disagree as well. You correctly point out that in Acts 10, Peter was still obviously following the customs of Judaism. However, it is in Acts 10 that he also finally understands that Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses for all men. Three times Peter is told that "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." And once the three messengers from Cornelius arrive, he understands the truth, and in Acts 10:28 he says "God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." And he continues in Acts 10:34-35 "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." And in Acts 10:43 says that "through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." With those words, Peter has already begun to spread the news that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Law of Moses. Then in Acts 10:45 we read "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." In Acts 11, Peter repeats this news to the church in Judea and in verse 38 we learn "When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."
Meanwhile, Paul has already begun his journeys spreading the Gospel to the Gentiles, teaching exactly the same thing that Peter has revealed to the church in Judea, yet Paul has yet to meet Peter. In fact, in Galatians we learn that Paul did not receive the Gospel from man, but by "the revelation of Jesus Christ". Obviously, Peter's words quoted in Acts 15 had nothing to do with Paul's knowledge that Jewish customs and traditions were not a requirement for anything.
ALL of these events happened before what is described in Acts 15. In fact, they happened at least 14 years before Acts 15. (That was the time between Paul's first visit to Jerusalem and his journey there to seek relief from the Judean Pharisees stirring up trouble among the Gentiles.) The truth was already out there. Both Peter and Paul had already spread the news that Christians were no longer bound by the Law of Moses. That "a sect of Pharisees" traveled from Judea to falsely teach something different is only further evidence of the fallibility of man. The truth was already known. Both Peter and Paul had been teaching it for years as revealed to them by God. It was the false traditions of man that said otherwise.
With regard to whether or not there was anything written regarding the Gospel of Jesus Christ (ie the New Testament) read Acts 10:37-38 "That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him." Realize that Peter is talking to Cornelius here and is assuming that Cornelius already knows the Gospel of Jesus Christ because it is already "published throughout all Judaea". The Gospel is already known. It may not have been called the "New Testament" yet, but it was known nonetheless.
With regard to whether or not the Holy Spirit still helps us understand God's Word...of course I believe He does. Jesus Christ tells us that is His purpose. But if you are trying to compare what the Holy Spirit revealed to Peter and Paul with the role He plays inside each one of us today, then I guess you will have to explain why our New Testament is not being continuously added to. What was revealed to the Apostles was recorded forever as the inspired Word of God. Yet, the newest book of the New Testament was written early in the 2nd century (I think). If the Holy Spirit is still revealing what isn't already revealed in the words of the Apostles, why isn't it considered the inspired Word of God and added to the Bible?
"Your basis of the content of the NT is entirely based on a circular argument, totally ignoring that tradition is how we can know what books are rightfully placed (and none left out)."
Stop right there. You are forming arguments for me that I've never made. I have never stated that we should "totally ignore" tradition. Never. Not once. In fact, I am the guy who wanted to study each of the early church fathers to learn exactly what they said about the content of the Biblical Canon. I respect tradition. I don't trust the church's (any church's) ability to accurately report that tradition. What Athanasius actually said, and what his words have been described as saying are not always the same thing. I believe Scripture is the inspired Word of God. It is Truth. That is not my assumption of anything not recorded in Scripture. In my last post to you, I merely stated that your argument would be better served by finding an example of "tradition" that isn't already recorded in the Bible. I believe that what actually constitutes the Bible is probably your best example of a tradition that cannot be fully answered by reading the Bible. That is why I am studying the development of Biblical canon.
"So I continued my study on my own."
It would be interesting to find out what you come up with, after doing a study on both the OT Deuts and the NT Deuts and then to see your conclusion on why you accept the latter but not the former. Or will you change your stand on this and take the Catholic viewpoint?
"However, it is in Acts 10 that he also finally understands that Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses for all men"
I think you are jumping to conclusions. Where does the Scripture say that? It merely says that Peter realized that the Gentiles were to be allowed into the Christian community and that kosher laws need not apply. It says nothing about Jesus being the fulfillment of the Mosaic Laws. You are making a connection that is not necessary. The point that I am still making is that the Apostles did not have an instant, complete understanding of Jesus's teachings, even after Pentecost. God had to send a dream to two individuals to move the Church along. You are trying to ignore the implications of this: that the Church gradually develops doctrine and beliefs. The Holy Spirit guides the leaders of the Church to the understanding of the beliefs that it believes, proclaims, and defines. This is an ongoing process, the precedent set in Acts 15, your denials notwithstanding.
"Meanwhile, Paul has already begun his journeys spreading the Gospel to the Gentiles, teaching exactly the same thing that Peter has revealed to the church in Judea"
If you mean Saul taught that Jesus was the Messiah, you are correct. But we don't know at what point Paul began to teach that circumcision was no longer required. Also, to say he hadn't met Peter is wrong. Galatians 1:18 says after three years he conferred with Peter, and in Acts 9:23, Saul was preaching in Damascus, then after "a long time had passed", he then went to Jerusalem. This is where he met Peter, to confer with him for 15 days. It is certain that at this point, neither taught that kosher laws were no longer required - as the dream had not yet occured to Peter - and Peter said he had never eaten unclean food before then. Paul was not a renegade and teaching something different then Peter at this point. I think Paul learned of Peter's vision soon afterwards, since he was nearby in Tarsus by way of Caesarea (Acts 9:30), and Peter went to nearby Caesarea, where Cornelius lived, to baptize. So I think Paul heard about this, heard Peter's report, and likely consented to it as Peter reported it in Jerusalem in Acts 11:2. Acts 11:1 says "the apostles and brothers who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles too had accepted the Word of God". At this point, we can safely say that Paul also accepted this news and began to preach it. We have no evidence that Paul taught no circumcision before this. Peter's words in Acts 15 were merely a repeat of his explanation of Chapter 11, the authoritative ruling that "this was how it was going to be". Years had gone by between Acts 11 and Acts 15.
Is this any different than any other development of doctrine within the Church? In Councils, we see that the Fathers believed "it seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit". There is no Scriptural evidence or reason to say this has ceased to happen. What happened in Acts 15 continues to happen, to include at Vatican 2.
"It was the false traditions of man that said otherwise. (referring to the Pharisee sect continuing the preaching that kosher rules still applied)"
What you continue to ignore about this statement is that SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION were being cast aside by the Apostles' teachings! The Pharisees had the legitimate, constant teaching of the OT Scripture and God-given Tradition of Kosher Laws, yet the Apostles declared that it was no longer necessary. There opinion was based on a dream that Peter had!!! Does this speak of the authority of Peter or what?! It appears you have yet to fathom the implications of this and what it means for the Church, even today!! I have shown that the Apostles were not teaching the abrogation of Mosaic Laws until the dream Peter had. AFTER this coming of the Spirit, recognized by the Apostles, their teaching, once given by Christ, but not taught after Pentecost, was then brought out, in contradistinction from legitimately held Scripture and Tradition of the Pharisees (not man-made, like you imply. They were given to Moses and Abraham by God). A Sola Scriptura Protestant at Jerusalem (or Acts 11) would have been scandalized! Even with this example, from Scripture no less, you CONTINUE to be scandalized by what the Church continues to this day - you presume the Holy Spirit has left the Church - that God only was guiding at the first Council - merely because it was RECORDED in an inspired book (a book determined to be Scripture by the very same Church. Are you beginning to see the inconsistencies of your arguments?)
"With regard to whether or not there was anything written regarding the Gospel of Jesus Christ (ie the New Testament) read Acts 10:37-38"
That is very inconclusive, as different translations have that as "spread" or "made public". Published does not necessarily mean written. It is certainly possible that a Hebrew Matthew was around, (which would probably be a much shorter version of the Greek Matthew) but this one verse is not convincing. Perhaps what was written was the so-called "Rule of Faith", a couple sentences found in the Creed about Jesus being born a virgin, suffered, died, and rose from the dead. Why would there need to be a written Gospel so soon after the resurrection when the Apostles were expecting the parousia at any day? You are going to need more evidence to show me that anything was written at this early stage.
"But if you are trying to compare what the Holy Spirit revealed to Peter and Paul with the role He plays inside each one of us today..."
I am not. I am showing you that the Councils, beginning with Jerusalem, are so protected by the Holy Spirit. Definitions made at these councils are infallible. Both the Catholic and Orthodox Church have always believed it, and Scripture gives us evidence that the first one was so protected by the Spirit. There is absolutely no reason to think that Council declarations are no longer protected - not one dogmatic declaration has been overturned.
I wrote..."Your basis of the content of the NT is entirely based on a circular argument, totally ignoring that tradition is how we can know what books are rightfully placed (and none left out)"
You wrote..."Stop right there. You are forming arguments for me that I've never made."
Your arguments say what you haven't written in words. You have constantly questioned the judgments made by the Church Fathers regarding what IS OT Scripture, (as if you can somehow "correct" them!) yet you accept the NT Scripture without concern. (Don't bother with "I haven't studied that yet". You aren't going to start ripping out James and Revelation from your NT). You made comments that either the Church was a bunch of liars or were sadly misled on several occasions. When I point out that particular Fathers directly mention 3 or 4 books of the OT Deut as being Scripture, you STILL are not convinced that that particular Father saw the Deuts as Scripture - you demand EVERY single book to be stated as Scripture for your rigid acceptance (although this requirement disappears for OT books such as Chronicles or Esther that are in both our canons) - not realizing or refusing to follow out the implications of this strict rule - that the NT Deuts are under the exact same levels of disagreement. In other words, you are highly selective of what Tradition you will allow into your predetermined system of beliefs. I find it interesting that you hold to particular Apostolic Traditions that are ambiguous in the Bible (like the Trinity) - yet refuse Apostolic Traditions that are very clear and held unanimously by the Church throughout 2000 years (like the Eucharist is Christ's Body). And you tell me you respect the Traditions of the Church? I have doubts on the reality of that statement based on what you have written and what you say you believe. Based on the above, am I wrong to conclude that you are paying mere lip-service to Apostolic Traditions? If so, please correct me.
"What Athanasius actually said, and what his words have been described as saying are not always the same thing."
And the same can be said of Scripture itself!!! How many manuscripts do we have? Do we have any originals? How about fraudelent letters? Do we have any of those? You see, if you trust the Fathers to report Scripture and accept it as such, you are going to have to also accept the defined declarations of these same Fathers made at Councils. It is no use fretting over such matters, somehow distinguishing between Scripture and the Counciliar decisions. As I have already stated over and over again, Councils are protected by the same Holy Spirit that inspired Scripture! Why you require absolute uninamity BEFORE such declarations at Councils is beyond me. It is inconsequential. I have given you the details of the very first Council, Jerusalem. They are in the same model!!! There was NO UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE WITHIN THE CHURCH BEFORE Acts 15! And before Acts 10, we don't have it AT ALL! Why the inconsistency with you? If you accept the reporting of the first Council, what about the second one at Nicene? And so on.
"I believe that what actually constitutes the Bible is probably your best example of a tradition that cannot be fully answered by reading the Bible"
Interpretation is even more important than the words themselves. Isn't that obvious? This interpretation, finalized in the Councils, is clearly another example of Apostolic Tradition.
Regards
Jo kus, I say in all truthfullness that I have stopped reading your post after this comment. While I credit you with the ability to conduct discussions in an atmosphere of learning, your continued insistance on telling me what my point of view is, what conclusions I've drawn, and why they are inconsistant is rude, arrogant, and unnecessary. And in light of the fact that you are capable of open and productive discussion without telling me what I'm thinking, I can only assume you intentionally make statements like you've opened your last post with to provoke a reaction. I don't have the time, nor the desire engage you in that type of discussion. Instead, I will continue to study the readily available facts of history that exist outside of the bias and interpretation of any church. After I have completed that study to my satisfaction, I will be happy to share with you what conclusions I've drawn.
I have sent you a long letter detailing the research that I have come up with. You will find the evidence is clear that:
1. With the exception of Jerome, NO ONE mentions that the Deuts are not Scripture or inspired.
2. As time moves on, more and more of the Deuts are explicitly mentioned as being Scripture.
3. Those Fathers who leave off some of the Deuts, such as Athanasius and Cyril of Jersualem, explicitly then go on to name a few of these as Scripture. This indicates that the definition of canon is NOT the same as inspired Scripture, as we hold today.
4. Based on the evidence, there is no evidence to assert, as you so boldly did, that the Church were either liars, or were poorly informed. These statements were made before the research was done.
"...your continued insistance on telling me what my point of view is..."
You have made this charge to me before, but it doesn't stick. Why? It is not necessary to explicitly make a statement to determine what you actually believe. When one holds inconsistent or contradictory positions, as I have pointed out repeatedly, one can assuredly draw the conclusions that I have made.
I have asked on various occasions for clarification on such contradictions, but you refuse to answer. Ignoring these implications only has lead me to believe the obvious that I see in your writings. It is unfortunate that our discussion ended as it did. I think it is because you saw the writing on the wall and do not want to admit the obvious - your strict requirements of what is an OT Deut to you will fail when applied to the NT Deut! You continue to ignore this, even now! I have already done the studying, and you will find that there was not universal acceptance for the NT Deuts. So again, for the umpteenth time, what is your basis, besides philosophy, for this inconsistent behavior? You keep telling me that "I'm drawing conclusions not mentioned", etc., but really, am I? Do the research. You have had the time. What have you come up with?
"I can only assume you intentionally make statements like you've opened your last post with to provoke a reaction. I don't have the time, nor the desire engage you in that type of discussion"
I have no intentions on provoking a reaction. Why would I want to sit and write for 2-3 hours with someone I already have disengaged conversation with earlier? Send me an e-mail once you discover what I have been telling you from the beginning - the Church calls particular books "Deuterocanonical" (OT or NT) for a reason. You will not discover anything different regarding the OT vs the NT. Your charge against the Church of 380-400 is totally false and by not adding the 7 books to your Bible, you are inconsistent regarding the NT Deuterocanonicals, books determined as Scripture at the SAME COUNCILS!
Rather than charging me with "presuming to know what you believe" and so on, prove your consistency. At least Luther wanted to remove the NT Deuts as well. Which will you do?
Regards
Your very first statement concerning Jerome being the sole exception is in error. That you cannot accept Athanasius' very clear statement on what is and isn't Scripture is a clear enough example of why I felt our previous discussion was doomed to an endless tailchase. You are very devoted to your beliefs, but as I pointed out previously, not even the Catholic Encyclopedia agrees with your position. So forgive me if I continue to question the rest of your assumptions and decide to examine the facts for myself. And as I stated previously, once I have done that, I will be happy to share with you what I have concluded.
"That you cannot accept Athanasius' very clear statement on what is and isn't Scripture is a clear enough example of why I felt our previous discussion was doomed to an endless tailchase."
Hardly true. I have given you quotes - and you still continue this total denial of fact. Your "search" notwithstanding, you must admit you are incredibly biased and have already made up your mind on the matter at hand. "the Church are a bunch of liars", you said on several occasions. How are we supposed to believe you are not biased with such statements? To again prove your bias, tell me, if Athanasius thinks that none of the Deuts are INSPIRED SCRIPTURE, why does he write the following:
"And where the SACRED WRITERS say, Who exists before the ages,' and 'By whom He made the ages,’ [Heb 1:2] they thereby as clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, 'The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth;’ [Is 40:28] and Susanna said, 'O Everlasting God;' [Daniel 13:42-Susanna] and Baruch wrote, 'I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,' and shortly after, 'My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One;' [Baruch 4:20,22]" Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:313
Daniel (Deut), Isaiah, and Baruch, in one sentence are described by Athanasius as SACRED WRITERS.
WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU OR ANYONE ELSE NEED TO SHOW YOU ARE WRONG???
Regarding the 39th Festal Letter, I already explained to you that "canon" did not equal "inspired Scripture" like it does today! You ignore that, too. Canon at the time refered to what would be proclaimed at the Liturgy. These other Deuterocanonicals were to be read in private, and were still considered Scripture, as the above quote (and I have more) state. Cyril of Jerusalem makes the same distinction. Yet you totally ignore this. You continue to mention 39th Festal Letter as if I said NOTHING at all! Oh, it is frustrating alright...
You have yet told me your standards that you will even use to decide a said Father considers something Scripture! WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU? I have constantly asked you of this, with no response. This tells me you have no real desire to research, but to nitpick. I have constantly asked you to consider that anything you apply to the Fathers regarding the OT Deuts will be applied to the NT Deuts - without you admitting the implications. Research has already been done. All that remains is for you to accept the results. I am seriously beginning to doubt that you will EVER accept the fact that the Fathers of the late 300's were in a better position to determine what was considered Scripture by the rest of the Church. Your arrogant presumptions of finding the Church in error from 1700 years removed is beyond me. It just isn't there!
If you go back to our last few posts regarding Deuts a few weeks ago, look over YOUR posts, you will find why I disengaged speaking to you. If anyone is stubbornly holding an opinion that is being proven wrong, it would be you. Your strategy of refering me to arguments that you yourself admit were incorrect, then re-refering me to them again and again, calling the Church liars or poorly misled, false accusations that I supposedly was deciding your mindset (when you practically spelled it out in your writing), and continuously going off subject were among the other reasons why this conversation will probably never be resolved to YOUR satisfaction.
I would be interested to know when you are going to remove James, Revelation, 2 Peter, and Hebrews from your Bible, if you are going to remove the Wisdom, Tobit, Sirach and the rest... Again, the research has been done. Apply the results consistently.
By all means, let me know when you come to the realization that the Church Fathers put forth an honest effort to determine what was Scripture. I have found absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Regards
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.