Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
The difference is that I do not write your responses, but I can collect them into a book and call them "Halrey's Follies."
Not even the early church fathers would have the adacity to make this kind of statement nor was it ever a view of the Church that "they put it together"
The early Church Fathers did not explicitly agree with each other as to which books constitute the New Testament canon until the end of the 4th century -- and beyond. In fact, various biblical redactions and additions were made by different Church councils since then, by Luther, even by Thomas Jefferson, and are being made to this date.
Someone here directed me to Ireaneus. I'd suggest that some should reread his views on the holy scripture
+Irenaeus (130-202 AD) knew only 16 books of the NT (the others were not written yet!). Early Christian fathers referred only to the Old Testament as Scripture.
Also, early Christians, depending where they were, favored different books over others. Thus, Jewish Christians generally rejected +Paul's epistles, and favored +James, whereas Gentile Christians preferred +Paul over +James.
Even Rome, at one point, included the Apocalypse of Peter as one of the NT books later rejected by the Church.
As late as 300 AD the following books were still disputed: Didache, Barnabas, Hermas, Diatessaron, Gospel of the Hebrews, Hebrews, Acts of Paul, James, 2nd Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Revelation, Apocalypse of Peter, and the Synod of Laodicea in 363 still excludes Revelation of John.
At various times in the early Church history, even the Old Testament contained anywhere from 22 to 27 books and also seven or more books which Luther called "Apocrypha."
So, from your responses, I can tell that you have no clue how or when the New Testament (or the Old Testament for that matter) came into existence. You can, of course, believe whatever you wish, but if you choose to do so in ignorance it may be better if you did not dispute verifiable facts.
I suggest you take this up with boracatholic and ask him what he means by that or to prove that Catholics wrote the books of the NT.
The true Church established by Christ is apostolic and catholic, as Irenaeus clearly states, and one could say that all the authors of the New Testament were members of that Church. So, I don't see where bornacatholic's statement is not true since all the books of the NT were written by the people who shared that same (apostolic and catholic) faith.
Oh really? When did the Church write Paul's letters. He might sue for plagerism.
Well did or did not the Church write the letters? You tell me the Church doesn't claim to have written them and then you turn around and say that after everyone was dead and gone they didn't exist. You'll find this wasn't the belief of the early church. They should know.
The Pope recently made an interesting observation. He said that Islam cannot reform! Why? Because they believe that the Koran is the literal word of God, untouched by human hands. Thus, EVERYTHING in it is strictly God's will, not subject to interpretation. All that stuff about having four wives is meant for all time, because God HIMSELF wrote it.
That is certainly not how Christians read the Gospels, whether it is you (FK) or me. For example, when Jesus says "if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off, for it is better to enter the Kingdom of God..." Does any Christian take that literally? No, we understand that Jesus uses hyperbole, a human means of writing. Thus, we interpret correctly what Christ meant. HOWEVER, if we were to take the Scriptures as God's LITERAL WORD, we WOULD have to actually cut off our hand!!!
I just see the internal consistency and purity of the Bible as unequaled anywhere else in the history of literature. I can't believe there was any accident to it, or that any failing of man found inclusion
Think about this for a second...DIFFERENT AUTHORS wrote the Scriptures. They each wrote a particular book. At the same time, many other writings were floating around, so-called Apocrypha and so on. Now. What we have in the Bible is a compilation of books that happen to expound and verify the oral teachings given. Orthodox men of the Church read all the writings, looked at what they had been taught, and said "yep, the writing we call 'Gospel of Matthew' is from God, the writing called 'Gospel of Thomas' is a not from God". THAT is why the Scriptures have a wonderful uniformity. Because God guides a community that has continued to hold onto the teachings that they have received from Christ through the Apostles. These Councils were guided by the Spirit to select the writings of those who accurately represented the teachings of Christ as given to them.
Remember, the Apostolic Traditions came first and was the basis for determining WHAT would be Scriptures. Chronologically and theologically, Apostolic Tradition came first. Technically, God gave us the Scriptures as a tool for teaching the faith - but it is not absolutely necessary. Witness the first 50 years of Christianity, even longer. It is doubtful that even 100 years later, many communities were aware of all 27 books that we now call the New Testament.
Brother in Christ
Very good, Joe.
"For the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes only by name to seven Churches in the following order--to the Corinthians afirst...there is a second to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians, yet one Church is recognized as being spread over the entire world...Howbeit to Philemon one, to Titus one, and to Timothy two were put in writing...to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline...one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church...But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all." The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).
"The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage--I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew--whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke's form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul." Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:5 (A.D. 212).
"In his [Origen] first book on Matthew's Gospel, maintaining the Canon of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows: Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, 'The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, saluteth you, and so doth Marcus, my son.' And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John." Origen, Commentary on Matthew, fragment in Eusebius Church History, 6:25,3 (A.D. 244).
"Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testaments, and what those of the New." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:33 (A.D. 350).
"Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle." Pope Damasus (regn. A.D. 366-384), Decree of the Council of Rome, The Canon of Scripture (A.D. 382).
"Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read, in the church under the title of divine writings.'. The canonical books are:---Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two books of Paraleipomena (Chronicles), Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:---the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted." Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393).
"I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. In proceeding to make mention of these things [the canon], I shall adopt, to comment my undertaking, the pattern of Luke...to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon..." Athanasius, Festal Letters, 39 (A.D. 397).
"[It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John." Council of Carthage III, Canon 47 (A.D. 397).
"The authority of our books [Scriptures], which is confirmed by agreement of so many nations, supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councils, is against you." Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichean, 13:5 (c. A.D. 400).
"If any one shall say, or shall believe, that other Scriptures, besides those which the Catholic Church has received, are to be esteemed of authority, or to be venerated, let him be anathema." Council of Toledo, Canon 12 (A.D. 400).
"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the desiderata of which you wished to be informed verbally: of Moses five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Josue, of Judges one book, of Kings four books, also Ruth, of the Prophets sixteen books, of Solomon five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job one book, of Tobias one book, Esther one, Judith one, of the Machabees two, of Esdras two, Paralipomenon two books. Likewise of the New Testament: of the Gospels four books, of Paul the Apostle fourteen epistles, of John three, epistles of Peter two, an epistle of Jude, an epistle of James, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John." Pope Innocent (regn. A.D. 401-417), Epistle to Exsuperius Bishop of Toulose, 6:7,13 (A.D. 405).
"Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis...The Revelation of John...for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in the church." Council of Carthage, African Code, Canon 24 (A.D. 419).
"The book of the Apocalypse which John the wise wrote, and which has been honoured by the approval of the Fathers." Cyril of Alexandria, Worship and Adoration in Spirit and in Truth, 5 (A.D. 425).
"Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:--Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles --these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative.
The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:--Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books. That of the New Testament, again, is contained within the following:--Four books of the Gospel, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John; fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul--one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews: two of Peter; three of John; one of Jude; and one of James; one book of the Acts of the Apostles; and one of the Revelation of John." Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 2:8,12 (A.D. 426).
God caused the Bible to be written in the same way God cause every other holy deed: hymns composed, liturgies put together, cathedrals built, etc. In all cases the human authors were moved by the Holy Ghost and produced a miracle. It is the Church operating through its councils, in its inerrancy, that selected the writings that are inspired and left others as a supplement.
In the case of the New Testament we have clear signals that at least some of the books are writings for private consumption. Luke writes his gospel to Theofilus, who has already received instruction in the living Word to confirm him in his knowledge (Luke 1:1-4). St. Paul frequently puts personal requests in his letters, as in 2 Timothy 4:9-22. He often refers to his oral teaching in his letters, as in 2 Corinthians 13:10; in 2 Thessalonians he expressly instructs the elders to hold fast to the oral teaching (2 Thessalionians 2:14).
But does popularity make it correct?
Ultimately, the test of correctness is whether a holy work brings people to Christ. If a particular writing -- for example, some rash passages from St. Augustine on free will that he later himself corrected, -- lead people to schism, then they cannot be correct, and they will not be reflective of the consensus of the fathers. Numerical popularity is a secondary effect.
I only recognize my church inasmuch as it is in Christ, not in the writings of any man
That is fine, but the writings of the fathers prove historical continuity of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
I'm pretty sure that you all have said that an infant baptism performed in a Protestant church "CAN" be effective. However, what do Catholics say happens to victims of abortion, or to any child who dies before the age of reason (and living in a non-Christian family)? Are the salvations of those children really mainly determined by their parents?
Protestant baptisms are valid (excepting some fringe denominations). In fact, in an emergency, anyone, even a non-Christian can perform valid baptism. A baptized child who dies goes to heaven automatically as he is cleansed of the Original Sin and did not commit any personal sin. An unbaptized child is at the mercy of Christ: we do not have a promise of his salvation, and likewise for unbaptized adult who has lead a righteous life. We only have a promise of salvation through baptism. The choice to be baptized must be present indeed: in the case of an adult, he has to wish to be baptized; in the case of the child, his parents must wish so.
Good works automatically flow from a regenerated heart
The Church teaches that works also assist in the regenerative work. One who does charity for some wrong reason, for example, because he mistakenly believes in salvation through works, will eventually be drawn to Christ and develop and strengthen his faith. It is true that works alone do not save, but neither faith alone saves.
elaborate?
Historically, the public school system in America was promulgated in 19 century in order to offset the influence the Catholic Church had in primary education. I can try and google up some articles on that later.
trying to blame Protestantism for what happened to Terri Schiavo???
Not for that incident, of course. I am aware fo the fact the the blind judge was excommunicated by his Baptist church. I mean merely that we in America have moved to the system of justice that is divorced from the moral law: ultimately, the voters decide what is moral and what is not, and they vote, and then the people they elected, or the people appointed by those who got democratically elected, make law and that law becomes morality. So, abortion is "moral" because it's legal, and marijuana is "immoral" because it is not legal. This pattern, that an individual can decide for himself what the Natural law in his heart says, follows the Protestant pattern where the individual can decide for himself what the Divine Law says. The apostolic churches believe that the Church is the deposit of Divine Law and is the only source of moral law, no matter what the democratic sentiment is at any moment.
Anglicans, the Church of England, etc. are all fully Protestant
They lost their apostolicity, yes. As to contraception, it is of course a wider fault than just the protestants, but the defection of Protestant churches made the struggle extremely difficult for Catholics.
God in his sovereign omnipotence allows us to make decisions and he foreknows our decisions, and makes plans in that foreknowledge. Divine foreknowledge is reflected in the prophecies. This is what the scripture tells us. It is not something that we can vote one; it is a given.
The authorship of those books, which are nonetheless considered inspired, is not certain, HD. Hate to burst your bubble.
Not only much of the New Testament is private correspondence, but its incompleteness is expressly stated, see John 21:25.
Hah! That's funny. Like I said, you have no clue what you are talking about. But, out of Christian charity and for the benefit of all and especially for better understanding where I am coming from, here is what is known of the Christian canon:
Let's start with the first century. The first Gospel was written about 30 years after the Resurrection, at the time +Paul was writing his Epistles, around 65 AD. So, for about 20 or so years, the Church existed on oral tradition completely.
Then the other two synoptic Gospels were written between 70 and 80 AD, but +John's Gospel was not around for yet another 20 years. So, no church could quote him until the 2nd century!
St. Clement of Rome (95 AD), third or fourth Bishop of Rome, mentions only Pauline Epistles. SS Ignatius (ordained bishop by St. Paul), born in 60 AD, and Polycarp (a disciple of St. John), born c. 80 AD, did not consider Gospels on the same level as the Septuagint (OT), which was the only Scripture at that time.
Marcion of Sinope (c. 150 AD) is the first to present a Christian canon. He was one of the first sigificant heretics, who rejected the Old Testament completely and the "Jewish" God, and used only the NT books available at that time as Scripture. He used the Gospel of Luke and exorcised any part of it that had to do with Jesus quoting from the OT. He also refers to this Gospel simply as "Gospel."
Tatian, a disciple of St. Justin Martyr, a Syrian Christian, wrote Diatessaron -- a one volume "harmonization" of four Gospels in 173 AD. The Syrian Church used this text liturgically for over 200 years as "New Testament."
St. Irenaeus (130-202 AD), as mentioned before, spoke of only four Gospels. He considered the Gospel of Luke and Pauline Epistles part of the one and the same author. He also knew of 16 NT books (out of 27).
The so-called Muratorian fragment is a 7th century document claiming to be a Latin translation of the Greek original of the first Christian canon complied by an anonimous individual in 170 AD. It excludes St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, Letters to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians, and the Apocalpypse of Peter, but includes the Epistle to Jude and the Book of Wisdom. The four Gospels, Acts and other letters of St. Paul are included.
Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesarea (c. 275-339 AD), the first recognized Church historian, lists 4 Gospels, 10 Pauline Epistles, 1 John and 1 Peter. He disputes Diatessaron (170 AD), and the following books now included in the NT: Hebrews, Acts of Paul, James, 2nd Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Revelation.
Cheltenham Canon (aka Mommsen's) from around 350 AD, lists 24 books in the Old Testament, and 24 books in the New Testament, but excludes Hebrews, Jude and James which are now included in the NT canon.
The Synod of Laodicea (363 AD), lists 22 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament, but excludes the Revelation of John (note: this is as late as mid 4th century!). This Synod was one of the first councils that was set up specifically to determine the canonicity of various gospels and epistles in circulation 330 years after Christ.
St. Athanasius includes a 22 book OT and a 27 book NT plus 7 non-canonical books Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, Didache, and the Pastor profittable for reading.
The Synod of Carthage in 397 AD settled the NT canon as porposed by +Athanasius.
Synod in Trullo in 697 AD excludes Revelation and Apostolic Constitutions.
St John of Damascus (8th century), accepts Didache and Apostolic Constitutions.
Nicephorus, the Patriarch of Jerusalem (9th century) added the books previously rejected as uninspired forgeries: appended to the end of his Chronography rejected Esther, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Maccabees, Psalms of Solomon, Enoch, Didache, Barnabas, Hermas, Clement, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of the Hebrews, 3rd Corinthians, Acts of Paul, Revelation, Apocalypse of Peter!
Martin Luther (16th c.) attempted to remove James, Hebrews and Revelation. Some 16th and 17th century Protestant bibles included these as "Apocrypha."
Councils of Florence and Trent (15th and 16th cc) added Deuterocanonical books. The Church of England in the Thirty-Nine Articles (17th c.) recognized them as "profittable" but not for doctrinal development.
The Calvinist Westminster Confession (17th c.) lists a 39-book Old Testament and a 27-book NT!!!
Synod of Jerusalem (17th c.) adds Psalm 151, 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Psalms of Solomon, Odes of Solomon, Letter of Jeremiah to the otherwise Catholic Canon.
The Orthodox Church to this day uses only Septuagint (LXX) as the OT source, since it is the OT quoted in the Gospels. The Protestants use Hebrew Masoretic text since the 16th century.
Thomas Jefferson (19th century) creates his own "Bible" using his own personal interetation what was believable and what was not.
Vatican I (1870) adds verses to Mark (16:9-20), Luke (22:19b-20 and 43-44), and John (7:53-8:11).
In 1927, Pope Pius XI declared Comma Johanneum as uncertain (it is a 16th century Latin innovation that does not appear in earlier manuscripts; the insertions have a strong Trinitarian character and involve John 5:7-8.
In 1993, the Jesus Seminar made up of some one hundred theologians recognized the [Gnostic] Gospel of Thomas as the "fifth" Gospel.
So, as you can see, the catholic and apostolic Church is not the only one whose members, collected, assembled and reassembled the what is loosly called the Chirstian Bible.
It is clear that throughout the history the term New Testament or the Chirstian Bible or Scripture meant many different things and that to this date there are changes being made by various groups in what is considered the inspired word of God. Iy is equally clear that not all Christian read from and get their understanding of the faith from one and the same Scripture.
But the first group to collect existing scrolls into a coherent canon of the New Testament was the catholic and apostolic Church.
God does not make His plan, FK. You have to get out of that time-constrained God of yours. God's plan (to have man in paradise in communion with Him) is accomplished. God is not waiting on us.
For sure, He sees man in paradise with Him -- at the beginning and in the end at the same "time." That will not change. God has offered to save all, but apparently not all will take the offer and follow Him.
Actually, that was not the early Church criterion. The early Church considered all works of Apostles as inspired and tose were the works that were read out loudly in churches (see also my post 2111).
We only have a promise of salvation through baptism
The Gospels say that only those who are baptized and believe shall be saved; but those who do not believe shall not be saved. Therefore, baptism is not the promise of salvation. Likewise, a child cannot believe even if he or she is baptized.
Baptism restores our free will so that we can choose. Baptism is not a some kind of a "spell" that saves us. It is grace of the Holy Spirit that cleanses (washes) us spiritually. Without baptism, our judgemnt is occluded and distorted. Those who are baptized and sin do so of their own choice.
...Very good, Joe.
Thank you, kind sir!
Yes, and not only that, but common sense would tell us that the Apostles who don't actually write MOST CERTAINLY go out and preach and teach to the nations. Peter and Paul were not the only apostles evangelizing! Thus, the Church history of the Apostles and their teachings is not found entirely within the Bible.
Regards
There you go again with your facts. As if that is gonna settle anything :)
We have to honestly try even if we honestly fail. :-)
If it helps one lost soul understand the Church better, I will be happy.
Ok. But, shall we tell them that only thee and me are in Churches? :)
...I don’t see obeying secular law as separate from our faith. That is called “secularism”. That is the battle-cry of those WE face in society, ... I think if you begin to have that attitude, you are on a slippery slope to not exercising your faith and evangelizing to the world.
I don't think we disagree on this too much. I just meant that I follow the leadership of others to a different degree and for different reasons. I try to follow God's law definitionally, whether it goes against what I want or not. (Of course there are plenty of times I fail miserably.) Contrast that to when Bill Clinton, who I think claims to be a Baptist, was my leader. I would never follow his leadership on God-related issues such as abortion, etc. I think you were saying this too.
...apostolic succession is based upon whether we believe the witness of the men who make the claim. But, just the same, we ALSO look to those SAME men who tell us WHAT the Scriptures are! It is interesting that you take their word on what is Scripture, but not on Apostolic Succession, which we see even in the Scriptures themselves.
I suppose the way I see it, it isn't the same at all. We both know the Apostles sinned and were subject to error. But if the Bible is inerrant, then it could not have been subject to human error. So, during those moments when pen was to page, the authors were temporarily "sinless". God was doing it all. At all other times, every writing and teaching of anyone is subject to error and must be tested. I don't mean to say that whenever they weren't writing the Bible they were sinning! :) They did so many wonderful and Godly things we might never know the extent. I'm just talking about for sure.
How do you KNOW the Scriptures are from God Himself, that they are inspired by God, but not the Koran, or other so-called “Scriptures”? Ask yourself “how do I know the Bible is from God”. Your answer will be “because someone told me, and I believed them.”
Through God's given grace and faith, I am able to see that the Bible is true and accept it. I do not accept it because of my trust in the man Paul, the others, or any of my teachers now. I do trust those people, but it is not because I decided to, it's all from God. The Spirit knows which buttons to press for something to "make sense" to me. If I misinterpret and am in error on a thing for a time, then it can be corrected through the sanctification process, (another excellent reason to engage in it). This has happened several times on some issues. I don't see this as changing my faith all the time, the core hasn't changed, I just see it as learning more correctly the nature of the true faith that God already gave me.
So, even when I teach new Christians something, my attitude is never "trust me", I have been a Christian for a long time, etc. I always say take a look at what I've said, see if it matches scripture and pray about it. The Spirit will then lead as He will.
The individual books of the NT are not self-authenticating as being God-breathed. We only know that because the men who walked with Jesus (whom THEY believed was God) tell us – and we believe them and their witness, their miracles and their way of life. ... It is not absolutely “provable”.
Of course, this depends on what you would accept as "proof". 2 Tim. 3:16 tells us clearly that Paul thought at least the OT was God breathed. I'd agree it is debatable whether he was also referring to (what would become) the NT. In any event, if the Bible really is directly from God, and not just a book by men about God, then we would expect it to look like nothing else ever produced by man "alone".
Wouldn't you agree that the Bible stands alone in the history of religious literature as the only book, written through many different people, across hundreds of years, with a firmly consistent message without contradiction, etc.? Every single prophecy which subject has come to pass has turned out to be absolutely true. How could men put such a book together? There is also no historical error in the events in the Bible. At least, no one has proven any to be wrong. The historical evidence is fully substantiated in contemporary writings.
There's a lot more, but I'll end for now with how likely do you think it is that the NT is filled to the brim with criticism of, and the follies of our greatest heroes? Almost all of them got thrashed to one degree or another. If you are trying to start a movement, would you highlight stuff like that? Can any other book say 'yes' to all of those things?
The fact remains that the Scriptures were collated hundreds of years after the diverse letters and narratives were written. People had an idea of the faith through Apostolic Teaching, THEN searched out ALL of the available Christian writings. They weeded out those that did not fit the PARADIGM, not the other way around! In other words, the Bible didn’t determine their beliefs, the already-held beliefs determined whether a letter would be called “Scripture!
I suppose I'll use my standard line that in the same way the scribes had "nothing" to do with the individual documents, men had nothing to do with their organization into what became the Bible. Men had no choice in the matter, otherwise, why were not the "big issues" around tradition included? I know the Reformation did not happen until a long time after they finished the original Bible, but it just seems to me that they might have covered their bases a little better, if they had a meaningful say in the matter.
You HAVE to have a paradigm, a standard, FIRST before you can say, “Ok, this letter is NOT what we believe”. The other option is Islam – “an Angel gave me this book directly from God”. But you still have the problem of trusting that man…Did God really give Mohemmed that book? (NO!)
Kolo said something like this too, and my answer was basically to agree to part of your quote of the Islam approach. I know that all the scribes of the Bible physically sat down, prayed, meditated and otherwise thought very deeply about what they were going to put to page. (That part doesn't sound like the Islam approach.) I'm just saying that God was the final editor and controlled the entire process. He allowed the personalities of the scribes to come through, but the message was all God's. My logic doesn't lead me to know whether the Bible or the Koran is true, the Spirit does.
The fact of its consistency is more of a testament to the TRADITION that was given to the editors and compilers of the Scriptures!
I suppose that I would just give all this credit to God only. My earlier comment about the 15 pages was just made up as a page count, whether it would have been 15 or 50 doesn't matter. Why were these fundamentals left out, or not clearer? Even with a traditional paradigm, aren't there too many things left wide open for the future Protestants to assail later?
You are taking for granted [that Jesus is the same essence of God] what has already become part of your paradigm. To us, yes, but not to Arius. He was a Catholic priest from the early 300’s who began to wonder, using his own intellect and the “promptings of the Spirit” that Jesus was NOT of the same essence of God.
... If you ever confront a Jehovah Witness, FK, be prepared to face these arguments. Of course, you will quote them John 1:1, 18; John 10:30; Col 2:9; and so forth. But then it comes down to your interpretation vs. his. WHO IS CORRECT? Thus, there IS a need for hierarchy to say “Arius, that is not what we have been taught.
Thanks for the history on Arius. I agree with you that we would have used very similar scriptural arguments in explaining Arius' error to him. But isn't that amazing that you and I would arrive in the exact same position using very different means, although with the same ultimate source? (That's one reason I don't dismiss any tradition "just because".) To me that is "a" proof that we are right and Arius is wrong, plus, if that's what the JWs say then enough said. :) And, doesn't the Spirit lead both of us to the same place (as we perceive it) on so many issues? I think that's great.
My argument to Arius would not have been so much "that is not what we have been taught" as much as it would have been "that's not what the totality of scripture teaches". On the question of who's to say whether my interpretation or that of the JW is correct, I can simply rest in how the Spirit leads me. If the Spirit doesn't (ultimately or directly) lead me, and I'm just making it up, then I'm not a Christian in the first place.
God bless.
Sorry but this is absolutely incorrect and nonsense. Apostolic tradition did not come first. The Hebrews were writing down things long before the Church was ever formed. And to say that the scriptures are not necessary flies in the face of many of the early church fathers' writings where they relied upon the scriptural teachings (please is Iraeneus works).
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.