Replies

>>>If you are, you must also realize that your positions are contrary to that of the Church.

Yes. The great news is that they are in line with God's Word. I can live with that dichotomy.

>>>I don't know how you can say this, given the fact that the first Christians did not have a complete Bible.

What a blessing that we do today! Great news, huh!

>>>Nor does this statement make much sense when you consider that the Church produced the Bible and not vice-versa. How do you resolve this in your mind?

The Church didn't produce the Bible. The Church, as an instrument of God, formalized the Canon of Scripture - for which all Christians should be thankful. Count me in!

>>>The question that begs to be asked here, therefore, is this: "Who or what served as the final, infallible authority during this time?"

The existing portions of God's Word (the Hebrew Scriptures and completed Books) and the authority of the Apostles who were alive at the time.

>>>If the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then since the Church existed for a time without the entire written Word of God, there would have been situations and doctrinal issues which could not have been resolved with finality until all of the New Testament books were complete. The ship would have been left without a rudder, so to speak, at least for a time.

See above

>>>But this goes contrary to the statements and promises that Our Lord made about His Church--particularly, "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt. 28:20)--not to mention that He told His disciples: "I will not leave you orphans." (John 14:18).

I know the verses. I don't think they support your conclusion.

>>>I believe I have already refuted this idea--which seems to be the idea that the Church is just the invisible collection of believers around the world.

You spoke to your believe about this issue, but let me say with genuiness, I don't find your view to coincide with the Biblical view, so I don't find it convincing. The Church, the Bride of Christ, is composed of all Christians (alive or dead) who are sealed in Christ by the Holy Spirit. On earth, among the living, the Church is composed of gatherings of believers - regardless of denomination - who have received God's gift of grace. So I agree, we are not completely invisible! I'm a member of the Catholic Church - just not the Roman variety.

>>>There, I state that the Mystical Body of Christ, yes, is the Church, but the Church is also the unbroken Apostolic line that is represented by the visible Church as the Deposit of Faith.

Thanks. Read your statement. The Greek Orthodox Church would have some things to say to you about who has the unbroken line of Apostolic succession. Personally, I do not see that concept in Scripture, nor necessary to establish a gathering of believers into a church. Nor do I see that as a required definition of the Church. I don't see that in the scriptures either. Do you have a passage that states this?

>>>Finally, no, the Church does not have the same history of vacillation and changes that the Protestant churches have had, not when it comes to major doctrinal issues.

Ah, my FRiend. I've studied more pages of Church history than I ever wanted to, including the history of doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church. I find much disagreement with your statement.

>>>An example of something that is part of Tradition would be infant Baptism;

I'd love to see that in Scripture.

>>>Anything that is part of Tradition is of divine origin and hence unchangeable

Made up out of the opinion of men, unfortunately - not revealed by God. The claim of divine origin is unprovable.

>>>Sacred tradition serves as a rule of faith by showing whta the Church has believed consistently through the centuries and how it has always understood any given portion of the Bible.

"Always", I would find to be an inaccurate description of many doctrines, based on Church history. What you view as "Sacred Tradition", I have no problem with, as long as it doesn't violate the clear teaching of scripture. If it does, it doesn't matter what men call it. If scripture is silent (in that case), there is room for practice. No argument from me on that. Our point of difference is that I don't find the concept of Sacred Tradition provable... so I guess we have to disagree.

>>>One of the main ways in which Tradition has been passed down to us is in the doctrine contained in the ancient texts of the liturgy, the Church's public worship.

Ditto above.

I've learned that I have far more in agreement - and the essentials of the Christian faith - in common with your Church than we have differences. Other groups who are represented on this thread, like the cultic mormonite group, are a whole new religion. Are you aware that they have restored what your group lost? They don't need the Apostolic succession either, they have a "Living Prophet"! :-)

best,

ampu

Ampu,

There are still a couple statements you have made that I had intented to address, and I will go ahead and do that. But of course I respect if you prefer not to continue with the discussion. I will do so even if it is simply to clarify my position to myself, or to anyone who might be listening over our shoulders. Do not feel obligated to respond, if you prefer not to.

In any case, there are two important issues you raise which I would like to address. The first is the issue you raise about the Church's role in the Canonization of Scripture. I think we agree on this, but I think the point is an important one, so I want to be clear about my position on this. Also, in a separate post subsequent to this one, I would also like to address the concern you raised about the Eastern Orthodox Church -- a very important and admittedly thorny issue for us Catholics. But I will deal with that later. The issue I will address here is the Bible, and the Canonization of Scripture by the Catholic Church -- an issue that has relevance to this discussion because I believe, and the Church holds, that it undermines the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

An historical fact which proves extremely inconvenient for the Protestant is the fact that the canon of the Bible--the authoritative list of exactly which books are part of inspired Scripture--was not settled and fixed until the end of the 4th century. Until that time, there was much disagreement over which Biblical writers were considered inspired and Apostolic in origin. The Biblical canon varied from place to place: some lists contained books that were later defined as non-canonical, while other lists failed to include books which were later defined as canonical. For example, there were Early Christian writings which were considered by some to be inspired and Apostolic and which were actually read in Christian public worship, but which were later omitted from the New Testament canon. These include The Shepherd of Hermas, The Epistle of Barnabas, and The Didache, among others.

It was not until the Synod of Rome (382) and the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) that we find a definitive list of canonical books being drawn up, and each of these Councils acknowledged the very same list of books. From this point on, there is in practice no dispute about the canon of the Bible, the only exception being the so-called Protestant Reformers, who entered upon the scene in 1517, an unbelievable 11 centuries later

Once again, there are two fundamental questions for which one cannot provide answers that are consonant with Sola Scriptura: (a) Who or what served as the final Christian authority up to the time that the New Testament's canon was identified? (b) And if there was a final authority that the Protestant recognizes before the establishment of the canon, on what basis did that authority cease being final once the Bible's canon was established?

Since the Bible did not come with an inspired table of contents, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura creates yet another dilemma: How can only know with certainty which books belong to the Bible--specifically, in the New Testament? The unadulterated fact is that one cannot know unless there is an authority outside the Bible which can tell him. Moreover, this authority must, by necessity, be infallible, since the possibility of error in identifying the canon of the bible would mean that all believers run the risk of having the wrong books in their Bibles, a situation which would vitiate Sola Scriptura. But if there is such an infallible authority, then the doctrine of Sola Scriptura crumbles.

Another historical fact very difficult to reconcile with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that it was none other than the Catholic Church which eventually identified and ratified the canon of the Bible. The three councils mentioned above were all councils of this Church. The Catholic Church gave its final, definitive, infallible definition of the Biblical canon at the Council of Trent in 1546--naming the very same list of 73 books that had been included in the 4th century. If that Catholic Church is able, then, to render an authoritative and infallible decision concerning such an important matter as which books belong to the Bible, then upon what basis would a person question its authority on other matters of faith and morals?

Protestants should at least concede a point which Martin Luther, their religion's founder, also conceded, namely, that the Catholic Church safeguarded and identified the Bible: "We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics--(for example), that they possess the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it."