Posted on 12/05/2014 7:18:21 PM PST by Salvation
by Jimmy Akin
Many Protestants would say, “Apostolic traditions would be binding on us if we could identify which traditions are apostolic and which are not. Obiously we want to obey and accept anything the apostles commanded and taught in the name of God.”
That is good. Protestants who say this recognize the authority of the apostles’ teaching; they simply need to see the mechanism by which we can recognize the apostles’ teachings.
1. THE CANON PRINCIPLE
How do we do that? The answer is that we recognize apostolic tradition the same way we recognized apostolic scripture. Today we are confronted with a variety of traditions, some apostolic and some merely human. In the same way the early Church was confronted with a body of scriptures, some apostolic and some merely human.
The early Church had to sort through these documents and figure out which were authentically apostolic writings — those by an apostle or an associate of an apostle — and which were merely human writings — those merely claiming to be by an apostle. The way they did this was by applying certain tests.
2. IS THE WORD OF GOD SELF-ATTESTING?
Some anti-Catholics, such as James White, are fond of claiming that the writer of Psalm 119 knew what God’s word was even though the Catholic Church wasn’t around to tell him what it was. But unless he was a prophet or had access to a prophet, the Psalmist did not have an infallibly known canon in his day. The canon was not yet finished, much less settled.
Anti-Catholics such as White claim that God’s word is self-authenticating, that it needs no witness. This claim is simply unbiblical. In scripture people regularly had to test revelation to see if it conveyed the word of God. This was not always obvious, even to the people to whom the revelation was given.
For example, in 1 Samuel 3, when God first spoke to Samuel, the boy prophet did not recognize the word of God. He thought it was the old priest Eli calling him, so he got up, went to where Eli was resting, and said, “Here I am, for you called me!” But Eli said, “I did not call; go and lie down again.” This happens three times: God calls Samuel and the young prophet, thinking it is Eli, hops up and rushes to see what he wants. Finally it dawns on the wicked old priest that God calling to the boy, so he tells him what to do the next time the voice addresses him. It turns out the young prophet was not able to recognize God’s voice, and the wicked priest Eli had to help him recognize the word of God. Obviously, God’s word was not self-attesting to Samuel!
Similarly, in 1 Kings 13 a man of God is sent from Judah to Bethel to prophecy. God tells him not to eat or drink until he gets back. But as he returns, an old prophet of God tells him the Lord has rescinded the command about eating and drinking. The man of God then goes home with the old prophet to have dinner. But while they are eating, a revelation comes that the order not to eat or drink is still in effect; the old prophet had been lying. This shows another instance where a prophet is not instantly able to discern between the voice of God and the voice of error. The man God sent to Bethel did not detect the fact that what the old prophet told him wasn’t God’s word. This purported revelation was not self-attesting as a fake word of God.
In Deuteronomy 13 and 18, God gives two tests to know whether a prophet is speaking the word of God. If the prophet makes a false prediction or says to worship other gods, he is not speaking for the Lord. The fact God gives these tests shows revelations must be tested because it is not always obvious what is and is not God’s word.
This is why Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21, “Stop despising prophesyings! Test all things and hold fast to that which is good!” The Bible thus explicitly tells us that we must test what is the word of God and what is not, just as 1 John 4:1 says, “test the spirits to see whether they are from God.”
So the word of God is not self-authenticating in the way some Protestant apologists allege. God invites and commands us to test any revelation purported to come from him. This includes scripture. If someone offers a book that purports to be scripture, it has to be tested to see if it is apostolic writing or merely human writing.
3. THE KEY TO CANONICITY
How do we know which books belong in the Bible? The early Church’s answer was: Those books which are apostolic belong in the canon of scripture. If a book had been handed down by the apostles as scripture (like the books of the Old Testament) of if it was written by one of the apostles or their associates (like the books of the New Testament), it belonged in the Bible. Apostolicity was thus the test for canonicity.
Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes:
“Unless a book could be shown to come from the pen of an apostle, or at least to have the authority of an apostle behind it, it was peremptorily rejected, however edifying or popular with the faithful it might be” (Early Christian Doctrines, 60).
But how could one know which books were apostolic? Certainly not by a book’s claim to be apostolic, since there were many false gospels and epistles circulating under the names of apostles. Neither did the Holy Spirit promise a revelation to each individual Christian of what books belonged in the Bible.
But how was the test for apostolicity carried out in the early Church? Basically, there were two tests, both of them involving tradition.
First, those books were reckoned as apostolic which agreed with the teachings the apostles handed on to the Church. Gnostic scriptures and other writings which did not agree with the apostolic tradition were rejected out of hand. This is something Evangelical scholars admit.
Protestant scripture scholar F. F. Bruce writes that,
“[The early Fathers] had recourse to the criterion of orthodoxy…. This appeal to the testimony of the churches of apostolic foundation was developed especially by Irenaeus…. When previously unknown Gospels or Acts began to circulate… the most important question to ask about any one of them was: What does it teach about the person and work of Christ? Does it maintain the apostolic witness to him…?” (The Canon of Scripture, 260).
Second, those books were regarded as apostolic which were preached in the various churches as being from the pen of an apostle or the associate of an apostle — not just its doctrines, but the book itself. If a given work was not regarded as apostolic and was not preached as such in the churches, then it was rejected. This was also an appeal to tradition because it looked to the tradition of the churches as a guide for apostolicity. If the tradition of the Churches did not recognize a book as apostolic, it was not canonized.
The fact that this was also used by the early Church to establish apostolicity is also something admitted by Protestant scholars. F. F. Bruce writes:
“It is remarkable, when one comes to think of it, that the four canonical Gospsels are anonymous, whereas the ‘Gospels’ which proliferated in the late second century and afterwards claim to have been written by apostles and other eyewitnesses. Catholic churchmen found it necessary, therefore, to defend the apostolic authenticity of the Gospels…. The apostolic authorship of Matthew and John as well established in tradition. But what of Mark and Luke? Their authorship was also well established in tradition” (ibid., 257).
But of course not all of the Churches agreed. Some Protestant apologists are fond of pointing out that the Muratorian fragment, an early canon list dating from the A.D. 170s, includes most of the New Testament. But they fail to point out that the Muratorian fragment also omitted certain works from its canon. It did not include Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John. Furthermore, it included works that the Protestant apologists would not regard as canonical: the Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon. So there was obvious disagreement on the extent of the canon.
Eventually, the New Testament canon was settled at the Council of Rome in the year 382 under Pope Damasus I. Up to this point, its specific books were not firmly settled.
Now a Protestant apologist will either have to agree that the men at the Council of Rome included all of the right books and only the right books in the canon or he has to disagree. If he disagrees, then he is going to have to disagree with the New Testament canon in the very Bible he uses, because it was the Council of Rome that established that canon.
But if he agrees that the Council of Rome included all the right books and only the right books in the New Testament canon then he is going to have to say that the early Church made an infallible decision (infallible because they included all the right and only the right books, thus making an inerrant decision under God’s providential guidance — which is infallible guidance). They made this infallible decision three hundred years after the death of the last apostle. But if Church councils are capable of arriving at infallible decisions three hundred years after the death of the last apostle, the Protestant apologist has no reason to claim they are incapable of this later on in Church history.
4. THE CANON OF TRADITION
The fact that when the Church made its decision it did so hundreds of years after the death of the last apostle is significant, but no less significant is the fact that when it made the decision it did so on the basis of tradition.
As we noted, the Church was confronted by conflicting traditions concerning which books should be included in scripture. Some traditions, for example, said that the book of Hebrews belonged in the canon; others said it did not. One of these traditions (the one indicating inclusion in the canon) was apostolic, the other (the one indicating exclusion) was merely human. In order to decide whether the book of Hebrews belongs in scripture, the Church had to decide in favor of one tradition over the other. Thus in order to settle the apostolicity of a scripture, it had to settle the apostolicity of a tradition.
As a result, the Church can not only make rulings of what is apostolic and what is not hundred of years after the death of the last apostle, it can also rule on which traditions are apostolic and which are not — and do so centuries into the Church age.
Therefore, the Church can rule on the canon of tradition the same way it ruled on the canon of scripture. The Church is the living Bride of Christ, and she recognizes the voice of her husband. She is able to point at proposed scriptures and say, “That one is apostolic; that one is not.” And she is able to point at proposed traditions and say, “That one is apostolic; that one is not. In this one I recognize the voice of my husband; in that one I do not.”
The mechanism by which we establish the canon of tradition is thus the same as the way we established the canon of scripture. The same principle works in both contexts. The Church is the witnesses to both canons.
5. TESTS FOR THE CANON OF TRADITION
Of course the Church has tests she uses to figure out what traditions are apostolic, just as she had tests to establish what scriptures were apostolic.
One test is whether a given tradition contradicts what has previously been revealed. As anti-Catholics often point out, proposed traditions must be tested against scripture. If a proposed tradition contradicts something God has said in scripture (or something said in already known apostolic tradition) then that shows it is merely a tradition of men and may be disregarded. The Church is thus more than happy to test proposed traditions against scripture.
Of course the Church also applied the flip-side of this test: In the early centuries any proposed scripture that did not match up with apostolic tradition was rejected from the canon of scripture. Thus when, in the second and third centuries, the writings of the Gnostics taught that Jesus was not God or that the God of the Old Testament was not the God of Jesus Christ, these books were summarily rejected on the basis of not matching up to the apostolic tradition.
Naturally, once a scripture has been tested and found to be canonical it is no longer subject to testing. Once a scripture has been shown to belong to the canon of scripture, it is no longer up for debate. Similarly, once a tradition has been tested and found to be canonical it is no longer subject up for debate either. Once a tradition has been shown to belong to the canon of tradition, it is no longer up subject to testing.
A Protestant apologist would not question whether a given book of the New Testament belongs in the canon based on whether it makes a statement that is difficult to reconcile with something said in another book. Once it has been found to be canonical, we can have confidence that it is God’s infallible word and any apparent difficulties arising between it any what God has said elsewhere can be solved. In the same way, once a tradition has been tested and found canonical, we can have confidence that it is God’s inerrant word and that any apparent difficulty arising between it and anything God has said elsewhere has a solution. If we can have confidence at superficial disharmonies in the canon of scripture, we can with the canon of tradition as well.
We know that when God speaks in scripture there are apparent difficulties which arise. Liberals use these to attack the inerrancy of scripture, and so conservatives produce books showing why these supposed discrepancies are nothing of the kind. But if God speaks in scripture in such a way that apparent discrepancies arise then we should expect the same thing to happen when God speaks elsewhere as well. That gives us no cause for alarm.
6. THE CANON PROBLEM
But the Protestant apologist has an even more fundamental problem because in order to justify his principle of sola scriptura or the “Bible only theory,” he would have to claim that we know what books belong in the Bible without acknowledging the authoritative role of apostolic tradition and the Church in finding this out. If, as on the Protestant theory, we must prove everything from scripture alone then we must be able to show what belongs in the canon of scripture from scripture alone.
In fact, we cannot even begin to use sola scriptura before we have identified what the scriptures are. If one claims to know what the scriptures are then one is making a claim of propositional knowledge, and which could only be revealed by God since we are talking about a supernatural subject, meaning he is making a claim to propositional revelation. But if all propositional revelation must be found in the Bible, then the list of the canon must itself be contained in the scriptures. The Protestant apologist must therefore show, from scripture alone, what books belong in the Bible.
But this is something he cannot do. There is no canon list contained in scripture. Many books of the Bible (in fact, virtually all of the books of the New Testament) are not quoted by other books of the Bible, much less explicitly quoted “as scripture” (something on which Protestant apologists, as a matter of necessity, are very big). And the Bible gives us no set of tests by which we can infallibly prove which exact books belong in it. The fact is that there is no “inspired contents page” in the Bible to tell us what belongs within its covers.
The Protestant apologist is in a fix. In order to use sola scriptura he is going to have to identify what the scriptures are, and since he is unable to do this from scripture alone, he is going to have to appeal to things outside of scripture to make his case, meaning that in the very act of doing this he undermines this case. There is no way for him to escape the canon of tradition.
Apostolic Tradition was the key to the canon in two ways — by telling us what doctrines apostolic books must teach (or not teach) and by telling us which books themselves were written by the apostles and their associates.
Ironically Protestants, who normally scoff at tradition in favor of the Bible, themselves are using a Bible based on tradition. In fact, most honest Protestants would admit that they hold to the books they do because when they first became Christians someone handed them (“traditioned” or “handed on”) copies of the Bible that contained those books!
Peter had no more authority than any of the other apostles. Catholics inserting that presumption doesn’t make it so.
The ones not posting must have been taken off the websites.
No it doesn't and that has been proved time and again on FR.
It is another often parroted claim. There is no official statement, but based on this priest's count , going to daily mass would result in hearing 13.5 % of the OT (w/o Psalms) and and 71.5 % of the NT being read during the Sundays & Weekdays cycle. Alex calculates this to be only 12.7% of the entire Bible (excluding Psalms) being heard by a weekly-Mass-attending Catholic.
And in response to the common "Mass every day for three years, you will hear the entire Bible" assertion, a Catholic at Catholic Answers (http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1063633&postcount=9) finds,
The readings for Sunday Mass are repeated every three years. The reading for Weekday Mass are repeated every two years. The following table, based on my own calculations (and therefore likely not entirely error-free), will give you an idea of about what percentage of the Bible, Testament, or each individual book of the Bible, you might hear read at Mass over the course of any three-year period, based on the number of verses read. (Note: All optional Mass readings were included. Also, a verse was counted even if only part of verse is used.)
Book(s) (verses) . . . . . . Sundays only . . Sundays & Weekdays
Entire Bible (35478). . . . . . 14% (5035) . . . 30% (10722) Old Testament (27524) . . . 6% (1663) . . . . 18% (4830)
Book(s) (verses) . . . . . . . . . Sundays only . . Sundays & Weekdays
New Testament (7954) . . . . . . 42% (3372) . . . . 74% (5892)
It is hard to hear the entire bible when according to the above even in the weekly Sundays & Weekdays cycle Obadiah doesn't get a single reading, and only 1% of 1 Chronicles and 3% of 2 Chronicles, 5% of Leviticus and Lamentations, and 6% of Numbers and Proverbs, and 7% of Joshua and 8% of Ezra and Job (just in the under 10% category) are read.
Moreover, some readings are partial verses, while much of the amount of Scripture RCs are said to hear in mass is redundancy, with some even including "Amen" or like brief statements in their calculations.
In addition, while never universally banning personal Bible reading by the laity, or never printing some in the vernacular, Rome certainly hindered it during much of her history, while in modern times teaching liberal revisionism via her sanctioned Bible helps for decades.
If you are going to post these prolix papal polemics, then you must face their refutation
.Some anti-Catholics, such as James White, are fond of claiming that the writer of Psalm 119 knew what God’s word was even though the Catholic Church wasn’t around to tell him what it was. But unless he was a prophet or had access to a prophet, the Psalmist did not have an infallibly known canon in his day. The canon was not yet finished, much less settled.
An invalid argument, for the fact that both writings and men of God were discerned and established as being so without a perpetual, assuredly infallible (if conditional) magisterium (PAIM) means that a canon of such established writings could be progressively established, as it was, like as the limited OT canon first was.
The Lord referenced the Law, and the prophets and the writings in showing the Scriptural basis for His messiahship, mission and message, which is understood as being the tripartite canon held by those who sat in the seat of Moses. </p>
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:44-47)
Secondly, the idea of "an infallibly known canon" presumes one cannot have correct assurance of Truth without an PAIM, and that such was promised and existed, which is is not and cannot be proved.
Souls did rightly have assurance of Truth, of God and what was of God, without a PAIM, which was never essential for supplying, discerning, dispensing and preserving Truth. Thus the NT had a verifiable foundation in the Scriptures. And in fact, while the magisterial office is valid, needed, and authoritative, with disobedience even being a capital offense God in some cases in the OT, (Dt. 17:8-13) yet such never possessed the charism of assured infallibility which Rome presumes, so that whenever it would universally speak on faith and morals then it was infallible.
And instead God sometimes raised up prophets, wise men and scribes (cf. Mt. 23:34) which discerned, provided and preserved what was of God, and reproved the magisterium. Thus the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; (Ephesians 2:20) — not the historical magisterium, to whom all of aforementionedmen which were in dissent from, who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34) </p><p>
And instead of following the Roman model, in which the office of historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, etc. are to be followed, the church began with common people rightly discerning what was of God and thus followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved from Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
And that the word of God/the Lord usually was written and became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing Truth claims is abundantly evidenced,
Anti-Catholics such as White claim that God’s word is self-authenticating, that it needs no witness. This claim is simply unbiblical. In scripture people regularly had to test revelation to see if it conveyed the word of God. This was not always obvious, even to the people to whom the revelation was given.
Note the identification Akin gives to White, which thus makes Akin anti-Protestant, as as well are seeing, anti-Christian. What White is that God authenticates Himself, that it, it is what it is regardless of what man thinks, so that it is not man or the church which authenticates the Word of God. (http://vintage.aomin.org/2White07.html)
Yet while both men and words of God are so regardless, in establishing them as being so for man then it does not mean that people did not need to regularly test revelation to see if it conveyed the word of God — which an admission is contrary to the RC argument that the infallible magisterium is essential for this — but means that God provided means by which His word was authenticated as being of God, due to its unique heavenly qualities. Thus people discerned what was of God without an infallible magisterium. “for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.” (Mark 11:32) “And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes.” (2 Chronicles 34:19)
And thus like additional writings added to the then-established canon in the light of of their complimentary and conflative nature.
Greg Bahnsen writes that “Moreover, their messages were of necessity coherent with each other. A genuine claim to inspiration by a literary work minimally entailed consistency with any other book revealed by God.....A genuine word from God could always be counted upon, then, to agree with previously given revelation -- as required in Deut. 13:1-5...” (http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt093.htm) Thus the frequent references to the OT in the NT.
For example, in 1 Samuel 3, when God first spoke to Samuel, the boy prophet did not recognize the word of God. He thought it was the old priest Eli calling him, so he got up, went to where Eli was resting, and said, “Here I am, for you called me!”
Indeed. He did not need an infallible magisterium to know for sure this was of God, anymore than one needs that to know for sure Scripture is of God, contrary Akin's own premise. And the coclusion this was the God of Abraham was subject to testing by the established transcendent standard for Truth, which was the written word.
How do we know which books belong in the Bible? The early Church’s answer was: Those books which are apostolic belong in the canon of scripture. If a book had been handed down by the apostles as scripture (like the books of the Old Testament)
That is a superficial basis. OT writings were established as being of God before the apostles, and thus they invoked them, and while their affirmation was part of the attestation to writings being of God, yet the reason that apostolic testimony carries weight is due to them being established as being men of God upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
“[The early Fathers] had recourse to the criterion of orthodoxy…. This appeal to the testimony of the churches of apostolic foundation was developed especially by Irenaeus
Yet upon what basis were the churches of apostolic foundation established as being from God? Upon the premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility of office, or Scriptural substantiation, under the premise of Scripture being the established transcendent standard for Truth? It was manifestly the latter. Thus while Akin imagines he is supporting the alternative to SS, that of the supremacy of the PAIM of Rome, he is not.
Second, those books were regarded as apostolic which were preached in the various churches as being from the pen of an apostle or the associate of an apostle — not just its doctrines, but the book itself. If a given work was not regarded as apostolic and was not preached as such in the churches, then it was rejected.
That was also problematic, as when faced with books for whom not author was certain, such as Hebrews — which i see as one of the most manifestly inspired books of Scripture (but i am certain it is not by Paul, maybe Apollos or Peter) — and faced with books that were used by many churches by not all, then doubt and disagreement went on for centuries, and right into Trent.
In fact, despite the emphasis Roman Catholic apologists (RCAs) place upon the certainty of the canon, the fact is that Rome had no infallible, indisputable canon for over 1400 years after the last book was written, and until after the death of Luther in 1546!
Eventually, the New Testament canon was settled at the Council of Rome in the year 382 under Pope Damasus I. Up to this point, its specific books were not firmly settled.
A typical stretch, as it manifestly was not settled, while the Council of Rome affirmation is said to depend upon the Decretum Gelasianum, the authority of which is disputed (among RC's themselves), based upon evidence that it was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent.
Now a Protestant apologist will either have to agree that the men at the Council of Rome included all of the right books and only the right books in the canon or he has to disagree....But if he agrees that the Council of Rome included all the right books and only the right books in the New Testament canon then he is going to have to say that the early Church made an infallible decision (infallible because they included all the right and only the right books, thus making an inerrant decision under God’s providential guidance — which is infallible guidance). They made this infallible decision three hundred years after the death of the last apostle. But if Church councils are capable of arriving at infallible decisions three hundred years after the death of the last apostle, the Protestant apologist has no reason to claim they are incapable of this later on in Church history.
A specious conclusion of Roman reasoning from error to error, as it first presumes that making a correct judgment in one thing means the entity is infallible, which logic means everyone who does so is infallible, including the Scribes and Pharisees who were right in most of what they held.
Secondly. Akin argues that if one makes a correct=infallible judgment then that means they can be infallible in the future. But besides making a correct judgment to mean one is infallible, the fact that one has made and can make a correct judgment simply does not translate in assurance that one will be, especially as per Rome's premise of perpetual assured infallibility of office!
Thus Akin has struck out in every one of his arguments.
the Church can not only make rulings of what is apostolic and what is not hundred of years after the death of the last apostle, it can also rule on which traditions are apostolic and which are not — and do so centuries into the Church age...The Church is the living Bride of Christ, and she recognizes the voice of her husband. She is able to point at proposed scriptures and say,
This what Akin has been trying to establish warrant for, but which is not simply that they church can make such rulings, but that they will be infallible, based upon her false, unScriptural premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility of office. For the alternative to Scripture being the supreme standard is that of the PAIM of Rome being supreme, and thus she can infallibly declare what is Truth, and what if of God or not. And whereby Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. She can thus “remember” (as Ratzinger argued) something not recorded in Scripture, and even is lacking in evidence from early centuries, and require it to be believed under penalty of anathema if not, as was the case for the presumptuous Assumption of Mary.
Of course the Church has tests she uses to figure out what traditions are apostolic, just as she had tests to establish what scriptures were apostolic. One test is whether a given tradition contradicts what has previously been revealed...The Church is thus more than happy to test proposed traditions against scripture.
That is a valid test if the basis for veracity is the weight and quality of the evidence, however this is not the case with RC teaching, as instead it is the premise of the assured infallibility of Rome, and in the exercise of which even the arguments and reasons behind an infallible teaching are not covered by the imagined charism of magisterial infallibility. Thus as Akin's fellow RCA asserts, “the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
It thus follows that Scripture only assuredly consists of and means what Rome autocratically officially says it does, and thus while going through the motions of showing conflation or lack of contradiction with Scripture, it is not allowed that it could contradict her.
Thus when, in the second and third centuries, the writings of the Gnostics taught that Jesus was not God or that the God of the Old Testament was not the God of Jesus Christ, these books were summarily rejected on the basis of not matching up to the apostolic tradition.
Which seems to have increasingly become the recourse due to the problems of defeating enemies by Scriptural substantiation under which itinerant preachers defeated those who sat in the seat of Moses but which in pride and hardness of heart rejected God manifest in the flesh. Instead, Rome became as the Scribes and Pharisees, resting upon historical descent for credibility and perpetual authenticity, and making the “tradition of the elders” sacrosanct, teaching doctrines out of traditions of men which developed through the years.
The problems with this appeal is that not only does historical descent not provide assured credibility and perpetual authenticity, as those in Moses's seat example (though the Israel of God continues), but that while the “tradition of the elders” may be correct, unlike wholly inspired Scripture it can be unwarranted as doctrine, or even erroneous. And by making tradition sacrosanct and the basis for warrant then it can also perpetuate and introduce errors, as Rome examples.
Once a tradition has been shown to belong to the canon of tradition, it is no longer up subject to testing.
Meaning not as men and writing of God were established as being so in Bible times, without an assuredly infallible magisterium, but as Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible, thus once she declares something is an infallible teaching then it is not to be questioned, nor basically is any “official” teaching, though in reality what is official teaching and or its meaning is often subject to interpretation.
Thus as in cults, a faithful RC is not to examine the evidence to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching, but “All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” “Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means."
A Protestant apologist would not question whether a given book of the New Testament belongs in the canon based on whether it makes a statement that is difficult to reconcile with something said in another book. Once it has been found to be canonical, we can have confidence that it is God’s infallible word and any apparent difficulties arising between it any what God has said elsewhere can be solved.
Wrong, as while the canon has been established, it is not because an assuredly infallible magisterium has done so, but due to its enduring heavenly qualities and attestation which continually validates itself. Thus as with a claim to be a man of God, while a Protestant may question whether a book or parts thereof (as some RC scholars do) really belongs in the canon due to its lack of conflation.But the fact that the 66 book canon has had such constancy and supremacy is a testimony to its warrant, and not the decree of a presumed infallible magisterium.
In the same way, once a tradition has been tested and found canonical, we can have confidence that it is God’s inerrant word and that any apparent difficulty arising between it and anything God has said elsewhere has a solution.
Wrong, as the basis for the validity of said tradition does not rest upon that by which men and writings of God we established as being so long before a Romanized church imagined it was essential for this. Instead the validity of said tradition rests upon the presumed assured veracity of Rome. Both of which must be tested by Scripture, but RCs reject the evidence against them based upon the premise that Rome cannot be wrong (“the church gave you the Bible: it knows better than you!”)
Liberals use these to attack the inerrancy of scripture,
He should know. For decades his brethren have done so right in an official Bible of Rome.
But the Protestant apologist has an even more fundamental problem because in order to justify his principle of sola scriptura or the “Bible only theory,” he would have to claim that we know what books belong in the Bible without acknowledging the authoritative role of apostolic tradition and the Church in finding this out. If, as on the Protestant theory, we must prove everything from scripture alone then we must be able to show what belongs in the canon of scripture from scripture alone.
False, and another typical parroted polemic. For as RCs themselves allow, explicit support is not necessary for judgment, and thus such a thing as consensual cannibalism (we eat whoever dies first) can be conditionally condemned under the principal that only animal and plant life are manifestly provided as being man's food, (Gn. 9:3) yet as the puprose of the law is to save life, thus in dire circumstances it might be allowable.
And since the written word of God, as written, became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, even which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus in principal they materially provide for a canon of Scripture — without an infallible magisterium, thus Scripture.
And in principle, we see SS being established, with limited formal sufficiency but with its materially sufficiency providing for its future overall sufficiency. Yet which includes the church, the magisterium, reason, natural revelation, etc.
In fact, we cannot even begin to use sola scriptura before we have identified what the scriptures are.
Yet SS in its fulness is not claimed by its main advocates of note as being operative before a complete canon, any more than RCs can argue that the infallible church was the supreme authority throughout time. Before Moses, express Divine revelation was very limited only to a few persons. God the supernaturally established Moses as His spokesman, and through whom the Law came, which became the supreme standard. Other supplementary complementary writings became part of that standard in conflation with it.
With the apparent completion of Scripture, To whom much is given, much is required.
If one claims to know what the scriptures are then one is making a claim of propositional knowledge, and which could only be revealed by God since we are talking about a supernatural subject, meaning he is making a claim to propositional revelation. But if all propositional revelation must be found in the Bible, then the list of the canon must itself be contained in the scriptures. The Protestant apologist must therefore show, from scripture alone, what books belong in the Bible
Rather, holding Scripture supreme and sufficient in formal and materials aspects combined does not require all propositional (knowledge of facts, knowledge that such and such is the case) revelation to be formally revealed in Scripture, but it provides for souls obtaining propositional revelation that Scripture is the word of God, and that Jesus is Lord, which no man can say but by the Holy Spirit. (1Cor. 12:3) And if even one book of Scripture shows that souls can discern writings that are of God, then it provides for recognition of 66 books.
Westminster also states,
“all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all, what is necessary is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, and Scripture is such that “not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”
“Cp. VI: Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature , and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. hat “not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” — http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
The Protestant apologist is in a fix. In order to use sola scriptura he is going to have to identify what the scriptures are, and since he is unable to do this from scripture alone, he is going to have to appeal to things outside of scripture to make his case, meaning that in the very act of doing this he undermines this case. There is no way for him to escape the canon of tradition.
The only one in a fix is the one who is deceived by the idea that SS means only Scripture can be used, or that it formally provides all that is needed, and thus must find a complete canon of Scripture within it, versus the writings being established as being of God, and the supreme standard for Truth.
I contrast, Roman reasoning holds that one cannot be sure about what is of God apart from the infallible magisterium of Rome. RCs thus appeal to Scripture as merely as a “historically accurate document” in seeking to persuade souls to submit to her as assured infallible, and cease seeking to ascertain the veracity of her truth claims by examining the evidence for them. Which is not Scripture but cultic.
Apostolic Tradition was the key to the canon in two ways — by telling us what doctrines apostolic books must teach (or not teach) and by telling us which books themselves were written by the apostles and their associates.
By Apostolic Tradition is meant oral teaching, which Rome imagines includes such things as praying to departed saints in Heaven, and her perpetually infallibly Petrine papacy, among others that are absent from Scripture and contrary to it. But RCs cannot provides any proof that the apostles oral teaching cited in Scripture contained such, yet they are to be believed under the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.
And again, the apostles themselves wee dependent upon Scripture being the supreme standard for their claims to authority and the gospel, and that of the oral preaching of the NT, which was not that of Apostolic Tradition is not that of some things she forgot but later “remembered” almost 2k years later which are not recorded in Scripture, and are even lacking evidence from early centuries, yet which she required to be believed under penalty of anathema if not, as was the case for the presumptuous Assumption of Mary.
While RCAs falsely argue SS is not supported in Scripture, though it is in principle, they cannot established the PAIM of Rome and her channeling of doctrines out of her amorphous tradition. Concerning which issue Akin's nemesis James White states, “you have to demonstrate that an oral tradition that contains information other than that found in the New Testament is what is being spoken of when the New Testament speaks of tradition.
And I have already shown you from a number of passages in Thessalonians and in Timothy that the deposit, the faith, that which was entrusted to Timothy, which he is to pass on--which, as you know, is a classical text used in Roman Catholicism to defend the concept of the passing on of oral tradition--the Scriptures themselves demonstrate that that is simply the Gospel. It is the standard of sound doctrine. It is not something, as Tertullian said, that can be used to substantiate doctrines that had never even entered into the minds of the Apostles and prophets. Such concepts as Immaculate Conception or Bodily Assumption or Papal Infallibility, these aspects were not a part of the New Testament belief.http://vintage.aomin.org/1Mata01.html
Ironically Protestants, who normally scoff at tradition in favor of the Bible, themselves are using a Bible based on tradition. In fact, most honest Protestants would admit that they hold to the books they do because when they first became Christians someone handed them (“traditioned” or “handed on”) copies of the Bible that contained those books!
Actually, the issue is that of making the instrument of transmission equal to the written word, but we are not to base our acceptance of the Bible due to its means of transmission, which does not make it equal to Scripture, nor make all that is likewise transmitted equal to it. Rather, God supernaturally established men of God as being of Him, but as the word of God was written, as it usually ultimately was, then it became the supreme standard. To which more complementary conflative writing were added. Thus Truth, of what and who was of God, depended upon supernatural heavenly qualities and attestation by which souls discerned them, with Scripture becoming the established assured word of God by which truth claims were established, not under the premise of an assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome doing so.
And I hold to the books I do because while someone essentially handed me (“traditioned” or “handed on”) copies of the Bible, yet i hold them because i discerned what was of God by His grace, by which means souls came to Christ upon the basis of warrant, and so they remain, versus a church making various things equal with Scripture under the premise that a common means of transmission warrants that, under the fallacious premise of her assured infallibility.
Verga, if that is your belief, then (what’s in the link), then what do you make of what Catholic media (TV and radio) say? Between the two, I’ve heard thousands of hours of Catholic teaching, and what I’ve regularly heard is the Catholic speakers (including I would say priests) speak of Christians who aren’t Catholic as separated brethren who are Christians, but just “don’t have the fullness” of the Christian faith because they aren’t Roman Catholic. That, it seems to me, in fact, is the reigning Catholic perspective on Christians who aren’t Catholic.
*reformulated* = damage control because of bad publicity.
I guess Catholics are pretty much free to interpret the CCC as they see fit.
Some think that absolutely there is no salvation outside the Catholic church.
Others think there can be.
The CCC isn’t clear on it either. It plays both ends against the middle so that no matter what side a non-Catholic is on, some Catholic can come along and tell them they’re wrong.
As another FReeper observed, you can state a position that some Catholic told you about and another Catholic will come along and castigate you for it.
You just never know when you’re talking to a Catholic which side of whatever it is you’re talking about, they are going to come down on.
As FReeper Old Reggie used to say -
"There is no teaching of the RCC which is so clear it cannot be denied, modified, or re-interpreted as required."
IO have found it to be especially true on FR of those claiming to be ex-Catholic. Yet they say the most ridiculous things about Catholicism.
When you ask them who taught them that they slink away or change the subject.
Aha, when the truth is not good enough, make up something to make it sound better. Seems I was just reading where some poster tried to divert attention by asking another what was her degree? I posted about mine and got another snarky non-sensical response. Yet, none of the Scriptures have been challenged, but instead the fallback is on "our church"... which is the largest cult on Earth!
Funny stuff. And only some of it is true.
I’m not sure what you’ve said yes to.
As I said, Catholic media doesn’t preach that “outside the Roman Catholic Church,” there is no salvation.
What I consistently hear it preach is that all true Christians are saved, but that Christians who aren’t Roman Catholic should join the Catholic Church because it has the “fullness of the faith” which they are said to be missing out on.
I’ve also heard it said I believe a number of times that the Catholic Church believes that the Reformers who broke from the Roman Catholic Church were guilty of heresy, but that those who have come later and are Christians who have never been part of the Roman Catholic Church aren’t guilty of leaving of it for another belief. According to this view, put forth by Catholics in Catholic media, Christians who genuinely believe in Jesus as the Son of God and their Savior who died for them and was resurrected, and who have never been Roman Catholic, have followed Christ to the best of their knowledge.
And I will add to that, while it makes sense as a Christian to consider the claims of the Roman Catholic Church to be the “true Church,” which I’ve done and will not in a way stop doing, whenever the question arises anew for me, I am always re-convinced after considering everything over again that that’s not the case. When it comes down to it, the Roman Catholic Church’s claim is based chiefly on apostolic succession, but it is a claim that, like all others, should be scrutinized. Do the successive generation of Roman Catholic Church leaders have the fruits that prove the claim? I don’t have time to get into this subject now, but I believe the answer is no.
What I didn’t have time to say yesterday about the Roman Catholic Church and its fruits is that, first, Jesus said we will know true and false prophets by their works.
Then, think of all these things. Jesus said the Pharisees held the office of Moses, yet they were hypocrites and truly didn’t have hearts for God. Then both He and the Apostles in their letters left warnings to look at the doctrines and actions of those who professed to be Christians.
Jesus said, as well, that the Pharisees (or perhaps just a group of Jews) shouldn’t think that they were all right with God because they were Jews, because God was able to raise up a new Chosen people from the stones on the ground before them, and He also told Nicodemus in John 3 that the wind blows where it will, with no one being able to tell where it comes from or where it will go, and so is every one who is born of the Spirit.
In other words, that says to me, it is God’s Spirit that is like the wind (although ultimately since He made and controls the wind, it’s more like the other way around), in that He will go in any direction He sees fit to, and man can neither do anything about it, nor even with our natural human reason understand what He does, because He is acting out of His divine wisdom which is above our ways of thinking.
And that is how Jesus acted on earth. He followed the Father wherever that led, which was often into conflict with religion, even the religion of the Chosen people. And individuals then had to make a choice, which they were personally responsible for, whether to believe in and follow Jesus, or follow the religious leaders. The Gospels made clear, too, that if they followed the religious leaders over Jesus, they didn’t have any excuse that they were misled, etc. They simply didn’t follow Him because they loved other things before God.
And again and again in the Gospels, and as related too in the rest of the New Testament, it was faith in Jesus as the Messiah and repentance that brings salvation.
Now, what seems to be the chief thing that Roman Catholics say Christians who aren’t Roman Catholic are missing is the real Presence of Jesus at Communion.
Consider these points on that. What Catholics take literally is only in John 6. Jesus also told the rich young ruler that he needed to get rid of all he had, yet Christians don’t take that exchange as meant for everyone. Jesus knew the ruler, and because He did, He judged him at that point, giving the ruler something to do which the man couldn’t. It might only have been a temporary judgment, but it was one. The ruler turned from Jesus and left Him.
Something similar happens in John 6, too. But before considering that, also consider that Jesus also told the Pharisees to “destroy this temple, and He would raise it up again in three days.” Yet, the Bible says that the disciples understood later that Jesus meant not the temple, but His body. The Gospels also say that Jesus spoke only in parables at times to the crowds (because they were unbelieving) and later in John, Jesus’ disciples tell Him at one point that He was no longer “speaking in figures,” as He had been.
So, then, in John 6, we know an unbelieving crowd pursues Jesus across the lake, I believe. He tells them that right away. They keep pressing Him, though, to do signs, and that’s where what Jesus says about eating His flesh and drinking His blood causes the crowd and most of His disciples to go away, too. Jesus, though, says that His Words are eternal life, which Peter also says. Jesus at this point has judged that particular crowd, and some of His disciples, but makes mention that the one who would betray Him is still in the fold. s
Then consider something else, as well. At the Last Supper, Jesus did not give His Apostles either of His blood or His flesh to drink or eat.
What I don’t agree with is that evangelicals and Protestants often say Communion is “just a symbol.” Since evangelicals don’t treat Communion as just a symbol, I don’t believe we should say that, even though I understand why it’s said. But the World Trade Center was and is a symbol of America, and there is simply no comparing human-instituted symbols and “symbols” given by God, which are never “just symbols.” Evangelicals who actually are believers aren’t flippant or irreverent to the Body and Blood of Christ commemorated in Communion because they are the sacrifice of Jesus on our behalf, to make atonement for our sins. To those who profess to be Christians but don’t actually believe the Gospel, such as those in the PC-USA and the Episcopal Church, Communion really is “just a symbol,” and treated as such.
I have to leave off here, but if I get time soon, I’ll talk about the fruits of the Roman Catholic Church, in doctrine and actions, as evangelicals tend to see them.
He did them His literal Body and Blood.
This was no parable, there was no crowd, just the disciples.
Genesis 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life , that is, its blood.
Leviticus 3:17 It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.”
Leviticus 7:26-27 Moreover, you shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwelling places. Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people.”
Leviticus 17:10-14 “If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.
“Any one also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.
Leviticus 19:26 “You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes.
Deuteronomy 12:16 Only you shall not eat the blood ; you shall pour it out on the earth like water.
Deuteronomy 12:23 Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life , and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.
Deuteronomy 15:23 Only you shall not eat its blood; you shall pour it out on the ground like water.
Acts 15:12-29 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
“‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter:
“The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
Do you consume fat?
Leviticus 3:17 "This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood.'"
Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee.
Gen 17:11 And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt me and you.
Do you still celebrate Passover
Exo 12:14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial, and ye shall keep it a feast to Jehovah: throughout your generations ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
Circumcision, Not eating fat and Passover were all perpetual ordinances.
New Covenant and new rules.
Who ignored the NT?
Did you not see the whole passage from Acts about the Council at Jerusalem where James tells everyone that the HOLY SPIRIT thought it good to tell people to refrain from eating blood?
Of course, coming from a church which blatantly defies other clear commands of Jesus and rationalizes that kind of sin away (call no man father), I’m not surprised that they would defy His command to not eat blood.
The prohibition against eating blood predates the old covenant.
You lose on that one as well.
Do you eat fat, crab, mollusks etc....
ignoring the truth won’t make it go away, NEW COVENANT, NEW RULES!!!!
Not ignoring anything.
The prohibition against eating blood was established BEFORE the old covenant was given. So even in a covenant change, that would not be effected.
And it WAS reiterated at the Council at Jerusalem after the new covenant was in effect so it still IS in effect.
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.