20 Years without one iota of New Testament Scripture?

So we have an impresive list of typical RC slogans, but nothing of note or substance.

Let's be clear here. There is no question that the Earliy church's Scripture was the OT. It was some time before the believers began to have its own collection of sacred writings.

There is also no question that the gospel was for a time transmitted orally.

But let us also be clear that there is at work here a huge logiclleap. The fact of oral tradition does not mean that ther is oral tradition in addition to what we have preserved in the Scritures. Indeed the Scripture Carson quoted denies that very thing: 2Thess 2:15. For there we do not haver two messages one transmitted orally and one by letter, byt one message in two media.

There is simply no evidence for a spearate body of tradition that is apostolic. Perhaps most telling is the fact that the RCC has never nce attempted to provide a complete list of these traditions.

What is distressing is the 30,000 denomination rgument. no one with any knowledge of the facts should either accept it or propagate that lie. I cal upon all RCs to have the integrity to drop that particular flasehood from their apologetic repertoire.

In actual fact the differences between individual belivers is something going back to he beginning. That is how you get so much disagreement amongst the Fathers for example. Differneces exist (and monumental ones at that) among RCs today. It is a feature of humanity, not protestantism particularly, to differ. To say otherwise is dishonest.

What the Apostles taught were what was passed onto them by Christ. Modern RCs cannot say they do the same. Although RC apologist wannabes do a fair imitation in their sycophantic parrotting of the arguments of discredited RC apologists.

I will be so glad when some of these guys get passed the slogans and start discussing issues of substance.

 

Once again, I say that your definition of tradition
is different from mine and, I would say, from that
of the Bible. You hold in high regard those tradi-
tions which your church creates and passes on as
laws, to the point of capitalizing the word tradition,
I noticed. My tradition is completely contained in
the Bible; nothing more is needed for salvation.
The traditions Paul taught were from the same
Book, with much study after conversion, at which
time he was able to assimilate what he learned
from the Tanakh with what he then knew of our
Lord and with His teachings while in human form.

You ask if I accept as Scriptures of the Apostolic
Writings. Obviously, yes. They do not dispute
those of the Tanakh and were accepted by a
concensus of believers as Scriptural.

 

For all the claims of the Catholic church of being the successors of the Apostles, you would think that they would actually go and preach the Gospel according to the example set by the Apostles. Instead they sit around in big stone buildings, wearing fancy clothing and speaking in Latin. They do things that the Apostles did not do and call it Tradition but they do not keep the Tradition of the Apostles as recorded in Scripture.

 

As a Catholic you should know that when somebody is talking about Apostolic succession they are refering to the Majesterium, not the laity. The Apostles were teaching the same thing by spoken word as by written word which is why Luke could say that his purpose in writing was so that we might know the certainty of what we are taught. You are avoiding the main point, the people claiming to be the successors of the Apostles are not going out and preaching the Gospel to all creation whereas the Apostles did. Being part of a community of religious hermits does little to spread the Gospel so that people can hear, believe and be saved.

 

You're not paying attention. The early church had the OT. The Bereans used these Scriptures to varify what Paul was saying to see if he was truly a teacher from God.

 

Carson Weber writes,

"No, I asked why you accept 2 Peter as inspired Scripture when, in 324 A.D., Eusebius of Caesarea (a renown Church historian of that time) denies its validity.

Do you have an answer?"

This seems like an odd question to ask someone. Was Eusebius the final arbiter of the canon?

Eusebius was also for a while an Arian in his view of the nature of Christ. When charged with heresy, he changed his stand and accepted the Nicene creed. Arius stood his ground and was exiled. Do you agree with Eusebius' early view of the nature of Christ (i.e. that Christ was not pre-existent, Logos or the word), which was cause for some to be ex-communicated? If not, then why do you trust him so readily on the canon?

 

I've yet to see any evidence to the contrary. Just out of curiousity, what is this gospel that your friend is preaching?

 

"And this reality should cause one to question the premise of Sola Scriptura, which was an impossible doctrine for the first Christian communities to adopt."

Wrong. The truth is that they DID practice Sola Scriptura to the extent they could (remember the Bereans?). But the reality is that the docrine makes no claim to function in the same way during a time of ongoing special revelation as it does in a time when such special revelation is no longer occurring. IOW you are using a straw man in orer to discredit a doctrien you do not seem to understand.

"I would say that we have one deposit of divine revelation that is transmitted by two channels of communication: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition."

The point of the passage is to indicate that what can be found in one medium can be found in the other. They are not complementary revelations, but the same revelation in two media. There cannot then be anything oral that is not also written and vice versa. But the reality is that uyouir bogus traditons of men contain much that is not found in Scripture. And unfortunately for you, Paul's point is such that it is insufficient to say that one does not contradict the other (though it is easy to show that much of what you proclaims ST does contradict Scripture). What is in one MUST be in the other. Tryig to bring up "implicit" as an excuse doesn't work eitehr as it merely begs the question.

"What is easily asserted without evidence is just as easily denied without evidence."

LOL. And you have no evidence for a separate body of truth. You shoot yourself in the foot often?

Paul does not give anyu indication that he refers to a body of truth distinct from Scripture. in attempting to ress 1Co 1:2 into your service, you make the logical leap I mentioned. IOW you are using a curcular argument. Again, typical.

The Fathers also viewed tradition the way Paul does, that is, they believed that you could check Scripture and find the same truths. What is traditional is so becuase it is also in Scripture. They defined tradition basically by Scriture. Again, one message. Nothing in one that is not in the other. And again, I remid you that there is much of your so-called Tradition that is not in Scripture in any way.

As for your resource on the number of denominations, I checked it, and you misrepresent it badly. Roamn Catholicism is listed as a "megabloc", along with independants, protestants, Orthodox, Marginal Christians, and Anglicans. That means that the people behind the website treat protestants as 1 bloc and RCism as 1 bloc. It also means that since the Reformation you have Protestant, Anglicans and, probably independants. That is 3 bolcs that have developed since the Reformation. That's half the total. The other half is pre-Reformation. If the post Reformation half is bad, how bad is the pre reformation half?

Did you not see that, when there is an equal standard for comaprison, we see not 35000 but 6 "blocs". So you misrepresent the information. Or perhaps you don't understand it?

Where you get that figure of 35000 is under "denominations". But we are not told how denomination is defined. You would have us assue that it applies opnly to protetsants. I wonder how many of those denomoinations are RC? Probably many. Barett (one of the authors on the website) lists in his 1982 edition of the World Christian Encyclpedia 223 distinct RC denominations! One wonders how many he sees now! Projecting, one imagines probably over 1000. Perhaps more!

 

There is only one "Roman Catholic" denomination. There are many sects which broke away from the Catholic Church which refer to themselves as "Catholic" in some form, but to be Roman Catholic you must be under the Bishop of Rome. And if you are, you are not divided.

Just clearing that issue up.

 

Carson,

I don't understand what you are trying to do in this thread, but I think maybe honest discussion isn't one of them.

You stated:

"No, I asked why you accept 2 Peter as inspired Scripture when, in 324 A.D., Eusebius of Caesarea (a renown Church historian of that time) denies its validity.

Do you have an answer?"

In essense this means.
1. You accept 2 Peter.
2. Eusebius did not.
3. Therefore you are wrong.

I showed how this was illogical. You then changed the subject and asked me a series of questions (thus showing you probably had debate in high school.)

Does this mean you are conceding that the above point was without merit?

 

No, I haven't heard of them and that is exactly the problem. I simply do not see any Catholic evangelists. What does the good news that you described mean in terms of how a person is saved?

 

Carson, I think we have a language barrier. 8o)

I put no stock in the biblical historians of that
time, in the creeds, or in the biblicists. You are
requesting that I answer your question based
upon your belief, not upon my own. I said that
I accept all the Apostolic writings as biblical;
that is my answer, and it covers your question.

I am sure it is informative for you to receive
answers from those who do not accept your
beliefs as Gospel. Perhaps it is even quite
enjoyable to do so. I have done the same, to
a point, with people of other beliefs but never
with the idea of trying to undermine their con-
cepts. I get the feeling this is what you are
attempting to do here, although you are quite
polite about it. Why is this so important to you?

 

Hi Carson, I read the link, which was quite interesting. I got the impression that it was finally up to the church which writings/ doctrines of the church fathers were to be considered as relyable Tradition. That is, from your perspective, the church decides what is Scripture, and also what is Tradition. The church is thus the final authority for you. Presumably, however, having once decided that something is authoritative, it is obliged to adhere to that for all time. Am I getting close?
All the best, Colin

 

I agree. The question I was answering was not only illogical but also hostile.

My restatement perfectly matched your original statement. You have shown no discrepancy whatsoever. However, I will take this obvious rewriting of your view as your way of conceding your original statement was false.

Let’s start with your fact 1. You are claiming that “Christian communities rejected” these books? How do you know who Eusebius was speaking for here other then himself? I have already pointed out that he wasn't always reliable on theology (he was an Arian at one point.) Could it be for the heretical Arians? It not, how do you know that?

Also, do you accept the Coptic Church canon? If not, why not? This early church tradition is older then the Catholic Church’s. What about the Syrian Church canon?