Originally posted by WPutnam:
DHK replied, where I last said:
First of all, what "Bible" did these early churches have, DHK? The Old Testament, of course, but for the first 30 or so years, there was no New Testament! Therefore, there was no Sola Scriptura as well!
[QB]Okay, we both agree that they had the complete Word of God. Perhaps we may disgree in the means or the form in which they had it (orally vs. spiritual gifts), but they did have it. If they had access to both Old Testament and New Testament revelation one way or another, then it becomes apparent that their final appeal to all things of faith and practice was not any human authority, but a Divine authority--the inspired Word of God.
It is interesting to note what Peter himself says on this matter, as his second epistle was written only about 35 years after the death of Christ. Remember you said that there was nothing inscripturated during this time.
That's your quote, not Peter's
The following is Peter's quote from 2Peter 1:
From verses 16 to 18 Peter describes the most gloriuos experience a man could ever have. He describes what he saw on the Mount: the transfiguration of Christ, along with the appearance of Elijah and Moses. What an awesome, incredible sight! He assures his readers that he is not telling them cunningly devised fables. No, this is the truth, and he was an eyewitness to it; he was there when it happened. He even heard the very voice of God from Heaven speak of His Son. How many people could testify of having an experience like that. No one! No one, except for James and John, but that is all.
But curiously enough Peter concludes this section by saying:
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed,
He says here: Greater than the experience that I had on the mount; greater than any experience that you may ever have is the "sure word of prophecy whereunto ye do well that ye take heed." In other words God has put his Word above His name. He has exalted his Word. His Word is our final authority. It is nice to have experiences and traditions, etc. But in the end, it is the Word of God that counts. We have a more sure word, we have the Word of God; that is our final authority.
"It does not come to the fore as a doctrine until..the Reformation." Well you are entitled to your opinion. Perhaps more accurately put, the Catholics did not see it as a doctrine until the reformers had to point it out to them, but it was in the Bible all the time. Pretty much every Baptist on this board would agree that the Bereans believed in sola scriptura or the Bible as their final authority. That's a long time before the 16th century. What did they do? When Paul preached unto them, they didn't accept Paul's message right away. They searched or checked with their Bibles (the Old Testament) first. If what Paul preached was in harmony with the Scriptures they would believe it; if not, they would know that he was a fraud. How could they know New Testament truth from the Old Testament? In the same way that Philip could take the Old Testament scroll (Isaiah) from the Ethiopian euncuch, and begin at the same passage from where he was reading, and preach unto him Jesus. The enture Bible tells the redemptive story of Christ: both Old and New Testament alike. The Old Testament is Jesus Christ concealed; the New Testament is Jesus Christ revealed. Someone once said that he could find Jesus Christ on every page of the Bible. Yes, the Bereans used the Bible as their final authority. They didn't have to wait for the reformers to tell them that what they were doing was "sola scriptura." Neither did the Apostles have to wait for any Catholic Council to tell them that their belief in the divinity of Christ, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and of God the Father were three distinct persons and yet formed one God. The Catholics may have called it the trinity. Do you think that made a difference to the Apostles??
Sola Scriptura, as I prefer to define it--our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. I like the word final better than only, because it makes the definition more clear. We do use other sources (authorities). I am not opposed to quoting from a historian or even a church father from time to time. But the final authority must be the Word of God. All other authorities pale in contrast to its authority.
"If sola scriptura did not exist as a doctrine at one time." You may put a stop right there, and do away with the IF. Sola Scriptura has existed from the beginning of time. Right from the creation of Adam and Eve, God told Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That was God's revelation to man. It was authoritative. He could either choose to obey God's revelation or disobey it. You know the outcome. Man has had those same choices concerning the revelation of God's Word, and his obedience to it, ever since. God, in every age, has revealed himself to man. Look at Heb.1:1,2
Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
In Old Testament times God revealed himself in various ways through the prophets. Now, in these days, God has spoken to us through His Son. Everything that we need to know about the Son of God is revealed to us in the Bible. Before the Bible was completed either Jesus Christ walked among them personally, or He gave them spiritual gifts to "make up the gap" between his death and the completion of the Bible, a time of transition for all the believers of that period--the Apostolic Age.
From the days of creation onward God has always given us an authority in the form of revelation--whether that revelation came from a prophet of the Old Testament, or an Apostle of the New Testament--it was authoratitive. It was the final authority. No one, no person, no church, no organization had the right to put their stamp of interpretation and claim that it had the only private interpretation of the Bible such as the Catholic Church and its magesterium has done. The Scriptures are of no private interpretation (including the magesterium's private interpretation).
First, it wasn't just the Apostles that had the spiritual gifts. There was no apostle at the church in Corinth after Paul left. He wrote chapters 12 to 14 of his first letter to correct the abuses of spiritual gifts. They were given to those within that church who would provide New Testament revelation from God before the canon was finished. That was the purpose of gifts such as prophecy. "We know in part, and we prophesy in part."
Secondly, the Apostle Paul established over 100 churches on 3 missionary journeys. It would be impossible for the 12 apostles, or even any one of them to be present at all of these churches, if they alone had the Word of God memorized in their hearts.
You said, "it was enough for the apostles to simply know in their hearts and minds what the "Word" of Christ is, without the tongues,"
It was not enough. The apostles could not cover all 100 plus churches at once, not to mention the ones that Thomas started in India. How could they spread themselves so thinly, if they were the ones that had all the knowledge. God evidently had some other way of communicating revelation. The spiritual gifts was that way until the Bible was complete. And even then we must not assume that the churches were spoiled as we are. We are accustomed to having a dozen Bibles in a dozen translations in a dozen different languages, etc. Compare even today with some third world countries where Christians undergo persecution on a regular basis. For some it is difficult just to get a gospel of John, or a book of Romans. During the Dark Ages, Bibles were rare. They had to be chained to the pulpit. Not until the advent of Guttenberg's printing press did the Bible become more common among the people, and even then it took some time.
So it is fair to say, that although the canon of Scripture may have been complete at the end of the first century not every church would have a copy of the completed canon, but only some of the books, as is still common in some coutries today.
The Bible did not come from the church; it came from God. The church also came from God. God is the source of His own revelation. Don't try and take credit for God's own doing. Is the process described?
2Pet.1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. That is the process. They wrote down what the Holy Spirit guided them to write down.
I have already shown you how it was used throughout the generations as the final authority. God expects us to use his revelation as the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. 415 times in 413 verses is the simple phrase "Thus saith the Lord," used. The Lord--His Word--is our authority.
No you don't. A church does have some organization to it, just not the massive hierarchal system of the Catholic Church. Mat.18:20 does not describe a church. That is one of the most misquoted verses of the Bible. It is the concluding verse of a passage of Scripture where Jesus is describing church discipline. If anything it is describing the quorum of a business meeting that just made a decision to either accept a person's repentant decision, or excommunicate a person on the basis of non-repentance. Whatever the decision was it was bound in heaven just as it was on earth. In other words the decision was final and there was no appeal. And to put an emphasis on that, Jesus said, "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (i.e., in the midst of the business meeting, excommunicating the unrepentant). Put in that context, it is hardly the definition of a church.
There is no succinct definition of a church given in the Bible. But there are many functions described, and instructions given, that we can easily come up with one.
"A church is an assembly of baptized believers who have voluntarily organized themselves together for the purpose of obeying the Great Commission, and carrying out the ordinances of Christ (Lord's Supper and Baptism [immersion])."
A church has organization to it. It is not just two or three gathered together. There was a church at Aquilla and Priscilla's house. The very fact that you demean it is offensive.
The church that I am presently a member of, started off by meeting in a home. There are many, many Baptist churches that have started by meeting in homes.
The fact is that the people make up the church. That is why the word for church, ekklesia, simply means "assembly." It is an assembly of people, an ordered one at that. It is not the building as you say. Our church first met in a house, then in a community hall, and now it meets in a regular church building. We also have had open air meetings. But the point is that we (i.e. our congregation) meet as one assembly, whether outside or inside. It is the members of our assembly that assemble together. So when all the bishops gather together with pope, you do not have a church, you have a business meeting for the organization known as the Roman Catholic Organization, but not a church. It doesn't fit the definition of a church.When we all gather inside of St. John's Catholic Church (My parish) here in Warrington, FL, we have the "church." If we gather outside, in the open air, and celebrate the "Lord's Supper," we have the "church." And if a Catholic Chaplain says Mass (sorry, I must revert to my more modern meaning here) on the fantail of a ship, we have the "church." And if all the bishops gather together with the present pope in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome in a mighty ecumenical council, we have the "church." All of these events, be they in individual houses, aboard ship, in Rome, wherever, we have THE CHURCH, DHK!
DHK
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Added to the Church
- Thread starter Singer
- Start date
Oh no! A good and honest priest receives Christ and exposes the evils of the RCC! (whatever that is)
In case you really don't know, the Chiniquy book is just another in a long line of anti-Catholic slanders. You can buy it from Jack Chick, if that tells you anything.
CHINIQUY DEBUNKED
MORE CHINIQUY
So, are you interested in truth or slander? </font>[/QUOTE]Truth is truth no matter who prints it. The original is an autobiography. Lincoln was his lawyer. Would you place Abe Lincoln along with Jack Chick?
I grew up in the RCC. My mother went to Catholic school as a child. I went to Catechism for several years.
Yes Chick Publications does reprint it. But that book was printed long before Chick was ever born. I have a copy that predates him a lot. I read that book from cover to cover and found nothing misrepresented. The book is loaded with all kinds of documentation that is also public record for you to look up. Several others I know have read it and have said the same thing. If you are afraid of finding out the truth then don't read it. Chiniquy studied the RCC documents and let them speak.
In reading it there is loads of documentation that you can look up for yourself that are public record.
I have read the book and would be happy to hear your personal critique of it. What are the parts you find to be wrong?
Oh no! A good and honest priest receives Christ and exposes the evils of the RCC! (whatever that is)
In case you really don't know, the Chiniquy book is just another in a long line of anti-Catholic slanders. You can buy it from Jack Chick, if that tells you anything.
CHINIQUY DEBUNKED
MORE CHINIQUY
So, are you interested in truth or slander? </font>[/QUOTE]From the way yoiu write I would assume you have read the book. Or have you just read what someone else wrote about the book.
What I read about what was written was very poor. Several of the things I read as criticism about Chiniquy would not agree with my personal experince in the RCC. It would coincide with Chiniquy. The critic uses present tense reasoning to criticize something of the past culture. Hermeneutics dictates that when you interpet something in past tense that it must be ingterpreted in light of its historical context. Therefore the critic on the basis of his own ignorance demonstrates such poor methodology. He is acting much like someone who is trying to win a point at the ignorance of others. He is not even making an honest attempt to do careful work.
Again I ask you to point out personally where Chiniquy is wrong historically. Could you give me examples from your personal copy? I wil be happy to look up the same page number and continue this dialog. I have some friends who have read the book and grew up in the RCCas well and all of us come to the same conclusion about RCC doctrine.
Jesus called Peter the first pope "Satan." Does that make your first pope from the Devil? Context is everything.
thessalonian
New Member
"Jesus called Peter the first pope "Satan." Does that make your first pope from the Devil? Context is everything. "
Put this silly arguement 6 feet under and bury it. Peter was not the head of the Church when Jesus called him Satan. If your arguement is true then we must throw out Peter's two Epistles. Jesus called him Satan because at that time Peter was acting in a manner inconsistent with Jesus mission. After the resurrection Peter was in line with Jesus mission. Seems like you have read all the anti-catholic habadashary havent' you GB. And sucked it in, hook, line, and sinker.
Put this silly arguement 6 feet under and bury it. Peter was not the head of the Church when Jesus called him Satan. If your arguement is true then we must throw out Peter's two Epistles. Jesus called him Satan because at that time Peter was acting in a manner inconsistent with Jesus mission. After the resurrection Peter was in line with Jesus mission. Seems like you have read all the anti-catholic habadashary havent' you GB. And sucked it in, hook, line, and sinker.
DHK replied where I last said:
Uh, DHK, you are misinterpreting what I said; they had the completed word of God! ORALLY! What they did not have was scrolls of papyrus or parchment that had this "Word" inscriptured for about 30 years give or take after Pentecost (the latest ideas, scholars think, most of them taking it still out to sometime after AD 70, the destruction of Jerusalem and even beyond.)
Other then the book of Revelations, where Christ, from His throne in heaven, told John what to write concerning the seven churches, Christ gives absolutely no hint to His apostles to write a thing down! He taught them orally, infusing His "Word" into their hearts and minds without not one whit of a command to write anything!
And you have just accepted the idea that the "Word of God," today, is both that same Sacred Tradition (that remaining oral tradition that was also passed-down from apostle-to-successor) that is also the original authority, also included within and a part of the teaching magisterium of the Church, in a symbiotic relationship with the scriptures, as it came to be compiled, canonized and declared divinely inspired "God breathed" by the only "authority" around who could do so - The very same Church!
Or do I assume too much here?
I last said:
What they did not have was scrolls of papyrus or parchment that had this "Word" inscriptured for about 30 years give or take after Pentecost
Uh, DHK, you are misinterpreting what I said; they had the completed word of God! ORALLY! What they did not have was scrolls of papyrus or parchment that had this "Word" inscriptured for about 30 years give or take after Pentecost (the latest ideas, scholars think, most of them taking it still out to sometime after AD 70, the destruction of Jerusalem and even beyond.)
Other then the book of Revelations, where Christ, from His throne in heaven, told John what to write concerning the seven churches, Christ gives absolutely no hint to His apostles to write a thing down! He taught them orally, infusing His "Word" into their hearts and minds without not one whit of a command to write anything!
Now we are getting somewhere!
And you have just accepted the idea that the "Word of God," today, is both that same Sacred Tradition (that remaining oral tradition that was also passed-down from apostle-to-successor) that is also the original authority, also included within and a part of the teaching magisterium of the Church, in a symbiotic relationship with the scriptures, as it came to be compiled, canonized and declared divinely inspired "God breathed" by the only "authority" around who could do so - The very same Church!
Or do I assume too much here?
We have no idea what was written about 35 years after Pentecost. But somewhere around that date, ink first touched papyrus in the writings of the apostles (through their scribes) that was to later to be canonized as scripture - the beginnings of the New Testament. So, yes, it is quite plausable that 5 years after the 30 year date I gave (which was quite arbitrary) that Peter would have seen and read Paul's letters!
I last said:
What they did not have was scrolls of papyrus or parchment that had this "Word" inscriptured for about 30 years give or take after Pentecost
Again, this is conjecture. We do not know the exact dates. Please note that I indicate that "30 years" is approximate, since it is "give or take."
The following is Peter's quote from 2Peter 1:
OK…
I would have love to have witnessed the Transfiguration as well!
I could not agree more! God's total Word, given first orally to His church which we call the Sacred Tradition (Not traditions, like candles, rosaries, "Wednesday night prayer meetings," etc.) but what Christ had taught them - ORALLY. At one time, that was the only authority around!
When the New Testament was written, starting at about 30 years (give or take a few years, we really don't know), it began to be inscriptured. It was a slow process, with John's Book of Revelation written close to AD. 100, or about 70 years after Pentecost, but even then, it was not really "authority" (even while local/regional churches began to read them from the pulpit was authority) until the Church declared it so, in at least three church synods in the latter part of the 3rd century.
While I might say that this began the period where the Church considered both it's Sacred Tradition in symbiotic relationship with this New Testament, it must also be said that when ever an apostle authored a writing, it was ipso facto authority as written, only recognized so later on is such synods. Nevertheless, it must also be said that it took an authoritative Church to declare it such - such a Church as Christ established in Matthew 16:18-19 with awesome authority!
I last said:
I can agree here. There is no doubt that such gifts were needed to continue the "jump start" of the new infant church, after the initial jolt by the holy Spirit at Pentecost, and yes, I would include as well, that gift that would have them preserve the "Word," finally, in the inscripturation process, but the point remains, there was no Sola Scriptura in those times! It could not exist, which was my whole point. In fact, while it is true that the early heresies attempted to support their doctrines from scripture only (the early signs of a false doctrine), it does not come to the fore as a doctrine until the so called "Protestant Reformation" in the 16th century.
Then I must insist that you point this out to me and all who read this thread! Please put your finger on the very text in scripture that supports Sola Scriptura!
And if you are tempted to quote 2 Tim 3:16, just be advised that certainly scripture is "useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (Catholic NAB) noting further that Paul could only have been speaking of the Old Testament at that time! But this is not Sola Scriptura! You see, the Constitution of the United States is "useful" as well for learning about civics and our government, but it certainly is not the "sole source" for such instruction, is it?
The problem is, this is not Sola Scriptura either, but exactly the opposite! The Jews compare the oral Word from the mouth of Paul, with what scripture (the Old Testament again) that they would match in comparison - the prediction of the Messiah to come - that they would now accept the new tradition Paul speaks form his mouth, later to also be inscriptured as we now know and read.
You tell me! I see nothing that suggests Sola Scriptura from anyone, except a conclusion one James R. White once stated: "If the early church fathers defended the faith from scripture only against the heresies that came and gone, that is Sola Scriptura!" (paraphrased from memory.) The problem is, that is not Sola Scriptura at all! You see, I am doing about the same thing in these forums - I debate from a "common ground" with non-Catholics, since non-Catholics do not accept the sacred traditions of the Church. And that common ground is scripture only! That does not prove that I believe in Sola Scriptura!
And likewise, the early church fathers debated from scripture only because that argument was the only thing the heresies could react to with consideration; an argument from tradition would go nowhere!
I almost said the same thing above! You are making my case, DHK!
That is exactly how the Church would do it today, if a "new doctrine" is under consideration: Does it match what the Sacred Tradition says, in consonance with what scripture says and teaches?
I love it when we can agree on something!
And precisely why that grand ole' Old Testament continues to be contained in the canon of scripture by Holy Church, read with reverence, and quoted at every Catholic Mass!
Of course, I should also mention that at this point, the Jews were not yet Christians! And saying that, I am sure that the oral traditions of Judaism also played a part (knowing full well, the prophesies of a Messiah to come.) And when this "new tradition" Paul is speaking to them about the scripture prophesy coming true in Jesus Christ, it was not long before they became Christians themselves! They accepted the oral tradition from Paul, compared with what the scriptures said, just as the Church does today!
It was always oral Sacred Tradition that there were Three Persons in One God, but there is only one God. It is implied in sciripture as well, right? But it was denied by a heresy or two, necessitating a convening of a Church council to define it - The Holy Trinity.
(continued in next message)
(Continued from previous message)
There is an old saying: "Doctrine is not defined until it is challenged!" This is exactly what the Church had to do from time to time…
I last said:
My ultimate point is, if Sola Scriptura did not exist as a doctrine at one time, how can it be true in a later time, when finally, we have the New Testament, compiled by the only authority around that could do such a thing in the 3rd century, and then declare it, somehow, as our "sole source of faith and doctrine" or however you may want to define it in Sola Scriptura terms? Did the very authority that did this - the Church - loose that authority into thin air after the New Testament was finally declared canonical, God's written word, the New Testament?
So, am I to take this to mean that while the New Testament was not written, then all authority was indeed, in the Church? BUT when the New Testament was finally compiled, canonized and declared authority, it suddenly becomes the only authority, and thus the final authority as you say?
Let's take this to it's logical conclusion: The authority of the Church, expended totally in it's final efforts to produce the New Testament, goes "poof," goes away, now only existent in the Bible. The final effect is for the Church to become a non-entity, a shell of it's former self, all authority in now in scripture for all to see, read and define as the holy Spirit moves them (all now think) and with the obvious lack of "self interpreting" that is implied here, finds us with (what is the latest figure?) 20,000 separate and distinct Christian denominations, sects and cults?
Sola Scriptura is not only self-defeating in it's effect, so also is "Final Authority in Scripture" (not knowing how to do this in Latin) crashing is flames in the same obviously observed effects - an explosion of denominations, sects and cults.
Now, can you show me evidence of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in the Old Testament? By now, you should realize that it does not exist in the New Testament, for such an important doctrine to be effective, it should have been there, at least strongly implied.
Did the oral authority of any of the prophets disappear when they finally had their words recorded on scrolls, sir? I am not denying the authority of the Old Testament as it was being written, after all, it is the authoritative word of God, given to the prophets now "etched in concrete" if you will. But it being done so takes away none of the authority of the prophet who wrote it (God's hand in the process is a given.)
And by the way, Judaism, in the old covenant, had it's sacred traditions too. In fact, Christ cited them a time or two. Can you name me the two magicians who defied Moses in Pharaoh's court? You will not find it in the Old Testament, DHK, but you will see it etched in the New Testament, from the mouth of Jesus.
I quote………..
BTW where was the Gospel before inscripturation? Where did Paul get
the notion that Christ said 'it is better to give than to
receive'-since he didn't have a written Scripture to go by--these
words are not found in the Gospels? Where in the OT did Our Lord draw
the words 'Moses seat' in meaning an authority inherited from Moses,
to Joshua etc.. down to the Pharisees--an institution Our Lord made
clear possessed a morally binding authority(Matt 23:2)? Why in the
world didn't Paul reject the extra-biblical idea of the rolling rock
in the wilderness (take a look at the notes in many commentaries noting
the Rabbinical tradition) rather than create a Christological type
simply from the word 'rock'(1 Cor 10:4)? Or why didn't Paul reject the
extra-biblical idea of the names of the magicians of Jannes and
Jambres that opposed Moses rather than using them(without their names)
as examples of false teachers(2 Tim 3:8)? Why didn't Jude reject the
extra-biblical notions of the archangel's dispute over Moses body
rather than derive doctrines and principles from them(Jude 9,14)?
These few examples prove Pedro that neither Our Lord nor the Apostles
practiced Sola Scriptura, contrary to your reading might conclude.
End of quote……
Taken from Joe Gallegos' famous papacy.zip available in HTML form at the following site:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/pv_church.htm
Yet you see scripture as "authoritive" without substance! Who told you this? How do you actually know that scripture is the divinely inspired "God breathed" Word of God, DHK? You know it only because a physical existing authoritative Church told you so!
Or do you believe in the circular logic that "The bible declares itself divinely inspired of God, therefore it is divinely inspired"?
Moslems declare that as well for the Koran, DHK…
I last said:
First of all, this is the first time I have ever seen as association of the "gifts" you speak of as being entirely connected to the inscripturation of the New Testament. In fact, I see that it was enough for the apostles to simply know in their hearts and minds what the "Word" of Christ is, without the tongues, certainly, but only conjecture as to "prophecy and revelatory knowledge" that seems to be applicable to the book of Revelation mostly, with little seen (from my viewpoint) in the rest of the New Testament, even the gospels beyond the actual words of Christ. (For example, the prediction of Christ of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.)
Certainly, not all of the apostles could be everywhere, even in the approximate holy Land areas at the time. Travel by foot was rather limiting, I am sure!
But you do touch upon an issue that would have caused Paul and the other apostles to appoint successors, one notable one being Timothy! How about Stephen as well, DHK? He was not an apostle either! Certainly, not all 12 are going to "make disciples of all nations" per Matthew 28:19 until and unless they appoint successors to continue the job, still continuing to this day, as they lay in the dusty graves all these 2,000 years! You have just swerved into the subject of apostolic succession, but we can save it for another day!
(Continued in next message)
No, they did not because it was their Oral Sacred Tradition that they believed so! But even the apostles had to convene to solve the controversy over the need for circumcision for Christians. And by the time the doctrine of the "Trinity" was challenged, it was defined!
There is an old saying: "Doctrine is not defined until it is challenged!" This is exactly what the Church had to do from time to time…
I last said:
My ultimate point is, if Sola Scriptura did not exist as a doctrine at one time, how can it be true in a later time, when finally, we have the New Testament, compiled by the only authority around that could do such a thing in the 3rd century, and then declare it, somehow, as our "sole source of faith and doctrine" or however you may want to define it in Sola Scriptura terms? Did the very authority that did this - the Church - loose that authority into thin air after the New Testament was finally declared canonical, God's written word, the New Testament?
Then that is another definition of Sola Sciptura, which deviates from the use of the term, "sola" in it's very description! Pardon me, but even in Protestant doctrines, you people cannot come up with one that will satisfy all, can you?
So, am I to take this to mean that while the New Testament was not written, then all authority was indeed, in the Church? BUT when the New Testament was finally compiled, canonized and declared authority, it suddenly becomes the only authority, and thus the final authority as you say?
Let's take this to it's logical conclusion: The authority of the Church, expended totally in it's final efforts to produce the New Testament, goes "poof," goes away, now only existent in the Bible. The final effect is for the Church to become a non-entity, a shell of it's former self, all authority in now in scripture for all to see, read and define as the holy Spirit moves them (all now think) and with the obvious lack of "self interpreting" that is implied here, finds us with (what is the latest figure?) 20,000 separate and distinct Christian denominations, sects and cults?
Sola Scriptura is not only self-defeating in it's effect, so also is "Final Authority in Scripture" (not knowing how to do this in Latin) crashing is flames in the same obviously observed effects - an explosion of denominations, sects and cults.
DHK, none of the accounts of Genesis existed on scrolls until Moses wrote it!
Now, can you show me evidence of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in the Old Testament? By now, you should realize that it does not exist in the New Testament, for such an important doctrine to be effective, it should have been there, at least strongly implied.
Did the oral authority of any of the prophets disappear when they finally had their words recorded on scrolls, sir? I am not denying the authority of the Old Testament as it was being written, after all, it is the authoritative word of God, given to the prophets now "etched in concrete" if you will. But it being done so takes away none of the authority of the prophet who wrote it (God's hand in the process is a given.)
OK…
How do you know that, DHK? Please find me one scrap of evidence that the bible is formally sufficient as you declare. It may be materially sufficient, in that reading it brings you to Christ to salvation, just as the Constitution of the United States may be materially sufficient to tell you something about the workings of our government, but to be completely sufficient, in that in and of it self, you need nothing else to demonstrate our government in action (formal sufficiency) is obviously false, isn't it?
And by the way, Judaism, in the old covenant, had it's sacred traditions too. In fact, Christ cited them a time or two. Can you name me the two magicians who defied Moses in Pharaoh's court? You will not find it in the Old Testament, DHK, but you will see it etched in the New Testament, from the mouth of Jesus.
I quote………..
BTW where was the Gospel before inscripturation? Where did Paul get
the notion that Christ said 'it is better to give than to
receive'-since he didn't have a written Scripture to go by--these
words are not found in the Gospels? Where in the OT did Our Lord draw
the words 'Moses seat' in meaning an authority inherited from Moses,
to Joshua etc.. down to the Pharisees--an institution Our Lord made
clear possessed a morally binding authority(Matt 23:2)? Why in the
world didn't Paul reject the extra-biblical idea of the rolling rock
in the wilderness (take a look at the notes in many commentaries noting
the Rabbinical tradition) rather than create a Christological type
simply from the word 'rock'(1 Cor 10:4)? Or why didn't Paul reject the
extra-biblical idea of the names of the magicians of Jannes and
Jambres that opposed Moses rather than using them(without their names)
as examples of false teachers(2 Tim 3:8)? Why didn't Jude reject the
extra-biblical notions of the archangel's dispute over Moses body
rather than derive doctrines and principles from them(Jude 9,14)?
These few examples prove Pedro that neither Our Lord nor the Apostles
practiced Sola Scriptura, contrary to your reading might conclude.
End of quote……
Taken from Joe Gallegos' famous papacy.zip available in HTML form at the following site:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/pv_church.htm
And you can find this idea where, DHK? it is seldom I do this, as it is a Protestant question to us Catholics, DHK, but it is applicable here as well: Where do you find this in the Bible, DHK?
Now, don't take me wrong here, but I do indeed believe in a "final authority" from God, but not in the Sola Scriptura (or should I now say, "Sola Fina Scriptura" (taking a stab at the Latin) That the Word of God, given orally by Christ, was "final" in it's instillation into the hearts and minds of the apostles. Nothing is really lacking at all, even while not a drop of ink has touched papyrus in it's being recorded or "etched in concrete" as I would say. Nothing is missing, even while it is solely in oral form. But when some of it (or even all of it, if that were possible) were written down, nothing insofar as the finality of the Word of God via the teachings and the gospel message of Jesus Christ is concerned. It was final when He taught them; it was final when He ascended to the Father in heaven; it was final when the holy Spirit came at Pentecost, and it was final when the canon of scripture was "finally" determined in the latter part of the 3rd century!
Yet you see scripture as "authoritive" without substance! Who told you this? How do you actually know that scripture is the divinely inspired "God breathed" Word of God, DHK? You know it only because a physical existing authoritative Church told you so!
Or do you believe in the circular logic that "The bible declares itself divinely inspired of God, therefore it is divinely inspired"?
Moslems declare that as well for the Koran, DHK…
I last said:
First of all, this is the first time I have ever seen as association of the "gifts" you speak of as being entirely connected to the inscripturation of the New Testament. In fact, I see that it was enough for the apostles to simply know in their hearts and minds what the "Word" of Christ is, without the tongues, certainly, but only conjecture as to "prophecy and revelatory knowledge" that seems to be applicable to the book of Revelation mostly, with little seen (from my viewpoint) in the rest of the New Testament, even the gospels beyond the actual words of Christ. (For example, the prediction of Christ of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.)
First of all, I am sure there was an "overseer" left at Corinth when Paul left. And no, he was no more an apostle then Timothy was. But I do agree that the gifts were not within the apostles alone, but were manifested in many of the lay Christians as well.
I am not sure what you point is here…
Certainly, not all of the apostles could be everywhere, even in the approximate holy Land areas at the time. Travel by foot was rather limiting, I am sure!
What has this to do with the "Word," being on the hearts and minds of the apostles? I'm loosing you here, DHK.
But you do touch upon an issue that would have caused Paul and the other apostles to appoint successors, one notable one being Timothy! How about Stephen as well, DHK? He was not an apostle either! Certainly, not all 12 are going to "make disciples of all nations" per Matthew 28:19 until and unless they appoint successors to continue the job, still continuing to this day, as they lay in the dusty graves all these 2,000 years! You have just swerved into the subject of apostolic succession, but we can save it for another day!
(Continued in next message)
(Continued from previous message)
Does it occur to you know why Christ did not emphasize the inscripturizing of His Word while in the flesh with his apostles and disciples? Do you now see why "bible reading" was not the important issue at all, ever, in Christianity until
1.) Bibles were plentiful and cheap
2.) People could read!
Yet, even in those early times, I declare that the Word of God as given to us by Christ was final in every respect, even while it was totally and completely oral, in the hearts and minds of the apostles and their successors!
I don't know where it read this but I understand that early scribes actually committed scripture to memory! Can you imagine memorizing all of the gospel of Matthew word for word? It boggles my mind to think of this, but then the necessity was there to do this, the written word was so rare as you indicated.
I last said:
If this were so as you describe here, why does not scripture itself describe the process of this inscripturation? If Scripture is so all-encompassing as some declare, why is this not an obvious process described? In other words, where does it say that the authority of the Church passes into oblivion (or is at least subjugated) when the time comes when the New Testament is a completed document? Where does it in fact say that scripture is the sole source for faith and doctrine? (Or sole source of authority, it being the only Word of God, now that ink has completed it's mark on papyrus?
I have an answer that satisfies ME, (believing in the infallible nature of the Church) but again, how do you know all that, DHK?
My question simply reverts to: How do you know all this, DHK? Who told you?
But the "Devil is in the details" of your statement where we will obviously disagree!
The "final authority" is indeed, in the Word of God as spoken and as infused into the minds and hearts of the apostles!
At one time, it was "final" only in those hearts and minds before ink touched papyrus.
Later, some of it was enscriptured and written-down, "etched in concrete" as it were, the important parts of this same "final" Word, but not in and of itself, the total Word.
St, John wrote, "I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face." 3 John 1:13
St. John said almost the same thing in 2 John 1:12
It would seem to me that John was not all that concerned about inscipturation at all, he wanting to talk to the people, not write to them!
Finally, we see John saying"
"There are also so many things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written." (Catholic NAB.) That is from John's gospel, John 21:25.
And so like the Old Testament, which fails to speak of the names of the court magicians who defined Moses, we see that there are things not recorded in scripture, all a part of the Sacred Tradition imparted to the apostles during Christ's sojourn here on earth.
I previously said:
DHK, that's fine. It is the same as the phrase "when two or three are gathered together in my name" we have therefore the "church." If my pastor comes to my house and says Mass (Oops, celebrates the Lord's Supper) for me and my sick wife, we have the "church."
DHK, your particular Christian community is probably quite small, right? Therefore, it does not surprise me to find it quite small in it's organization as the largest Church community in Christendom - The Catholic Church!
Matthew 18:20 does indeed, describe church discipline, and the authority behind it with the "binding and loosing" clause, as given originally in Matthew 16:19, after giving Peter the "keys of the kingdom." For a Church to exercise such discipline is to strongly imply organization, does it not, DHK?
How big was that original organization? Quite small, as one would expect in the infant church. And if you go back and read the contests of papacy.zip as given in the Joe Gallegos site I speak of above, Joe does an eloquent job of describing how the papacy grew from a small acorn to the full blown papacy of a mighty oak and yet it is the same papacy! (Like the acorn is the same as the oak tree, in full blossom.) And likewise with the organization of the Church, DHK; from a small beginning to the mighty Church she has become, in 2,000 years of her history!
But to continue in your thought pattern, not only is there not a definitive "correct" name given to the Church, other then just "church," the is also no succinct or definitive discussion on such subjects that are to be pertinant today, abortion, birth control, the ordination of "gay" persons to the clergy, etc. (even while you can certainly point to implication, large or small as they may be) they are still not succinct or definitive as one may want.
That alone indicates that the bible cannot be the sole source for faith and morals - there must be an active authoritative church in existence that can do this, exactly as Christ said in Matthew 16:18-19 that "…the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" in infallibility, that it has the "keys of the kingdom" of authority (as seen in Jewish metaphor in Isaiah 22:22) and of course, the awesome power of "binding and loosing." In other words, you would be hard pressed to address these new issues from scripture alone. It is insufficient to complete explain the evils of artificial birth control! And it would be insufficient to address the evils of abortion as well…
(Continued in next message)
No wonder that preaching from the pulpit was important! No wonder we see the beginnings of stained-glass windows depicting scenes from the New Testament, for even while everything you say he is true, you left out another important fact: illiteracy!
Does it occur to you know why Christ did not emphasize the inscripturizing of His Word while in the flesh with his apostles and disciples? Do you now see why "bible reading" was not the important issue at all, ever, in Christianity until
1.) Bibles were plentiful and cheap
2.) People could read!
Yet, even in those early times, I declare that the Word of God as given to us by Christ was final in every respect, even while it was totally and completely oral, in the hearts and minds of the apostles and their successors!
I don't know where it read this but I understand that early scribes actually committed scripture to memory! Can you imagine memorizing all of the gospel of Matthew word for word? It boggles my mind to think of this, but then the necessity was there to do this, the written word was so rare as you indicated.
I last said:
If this were so as you describe here, why does not scripture itself describe the process of this inscripturation? If Scripture is so all-encompassing as some declare, why is this not an obvious process described? In other words, where does it say that the authority of the Church passes into oblivion (or is at least subjugated) when the time comes when the New Testament is a completed document? Where does it in fact say that scripture is the sole source for faith and doctrine? (Or sole source of authority, it being the only Word of God, now that ink has completed it's mark on papyrus?
Who told you that, DHK? You pastor? Your assistant pastor? Who? How do you know the bible came from God? Do you recall that long list of "competing" works that did not make it into the New Testament in my last message? How do you know that the Church, in some error, left something out that was from God?
I have an answer that satisfies ME, (believing in the infallible nature of the Church) but again, how do you know all that, DHK?
So declared by Peter, upon whom Christ so named ("Peter" = "Rock") upon whom He was to build His church with awesome authority per Matthew 16:18-19!
Wrote down where? Was it possible in the Shepherd of Hermes or possibly the Gospel of Peter? Or perhaps it was in the epistle written by James, who many thought to be spurious, as well as John's Book of revelations?
My question simply reverts to: How do you know all this, DHK? Who told you?
I cannot agree more here, DHK!
But the "Devil is in the details" of your statement where we will obviously disagree!
The "final authority" is indeed, in the Word of God as spoken and as infused into the minds and hearts of the apostles!
At one time, it was "final" only in those hearts and minds before ink touched papyrus.
Later, some of it was enscriptured and written-down, "etched in concrete" as it were, the important parts of this same "final" Word, but not in and of itself, the total Word.
St, John wrote, "I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face." 3 John 1:13
St. John said almost the same thing in 2 John 1:12
It would seem to me that John was not all that concerned about inscipturation at all, he wanting to talk to the people, not write to them!
Finally, we see John saying"
"There are also so many things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written." (Catholic NAB.) That is from John's gospel, John 21:25.
And so like the Old Testament, which fails to speak of the names of the court magicians who defined Moses, we see that there are things not recorded in scripture, all a part of the Sacred Tradition imparted to the apostles during Christ's sojourn here on earth.
I previously said:
DHK, that's fine. It is the same as the phrase "when two or three are gathered together in my name" we have therefore the "church." If my pastor comes to my house and says Mass (Oops, celebrates the Lord's Supper) for me and my sick wife, we have the "church."
Yes I do!
DHK, your particular Christian community is probably quite small, right? Therefore, it does not surprise me to find it quite small in it's organization as the largest Church community in Christendom - The Catholic Church!
Matthew 18:20 does indeed, describe church discipline, and the authority behind it with the "binding and loosing" clause, as given originally in Matthew 16:19, after giving Peter the "keys of the kingdom." For a Church to exercise such discipline is to strongly imply organization, does it not, DHK?
How big was that original organization? Quite small, as one would expect in the infant church. And if you go back and read the contests of papacy.zip as given in the Joe Gallegos site I speak of above, Joe does an eloquent job of describing how the papacy grew from a small acorn to the full blown papacy of a mighty oak and yet it is the same papacy! (Like the acorn is the same as the oak tree, in full blossom.) And likewise with the organization of the Church, DHK; from a small beginning to the mighty Church she has become, in 2,000 years of her history!
What is it then an organizational church? How is it that "two or three" gathered together is not an organization, even while the "two or three" are simple lay persons? They, in and of itself, is not the church (as in the authority of "The Church"), but certainly Jesus is with them in prayer! In other words, I think one must be careful to making too much of a comparison of the two statements you make above. To take a person "to the church" in discipline implies a lot more then just "two or three in my name" per the words of Jesus here.
And I think St. Ignatius did exactly that when he attached the word "Catholic" to the name of the Church in his day!
But to continue in your thought pattern, not only is there not a definitive "correct" name given to the Church, other then just "church," the is also no succinct or definitive discussion on such subjects that are to be pertinant today, abortion, birth control, the ordination of "gay" persons to the clergy, etc. (even while you can certainly point to implication, large or small as they may be) they are still not succinct or definitive as one may want.
That alone indicates that the bible cannot be the sole source for faith and morals - there must be an active authoritative church in existence that can do this, exactly as Christ said in Matthew 16:18-19 that "…the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" in infallibility, that it has the "keys of the kingdom" of authority (as seen in Jewish metaphor in Isaiah 22:22) and of course, the awesome power of "binding and loosing." In other words, you would be hard pressed to address these new issues from scripture alone. It is insufficient to complete explain the evils of artificial birth control! And it would be insufficient to address the evils of abortion as well…
(Continued in next message)
(Continued from previous message)
I do not intend to demean your words, DHK, only to put them into what I consider to be a proper prospective…
I last commented:
When we all gather inside of St. John's Catholic Church (My parish) here in Warrington, FL, we have the "church." If we gather outside, in the open air, and celebrate the "Lord's Supper," we have the "church." And if a Catholic Chaplain says Mass (sorry, I must revert to my more modern meaning here) on the fantail of a ship, we have the "church." And if all the bishops gather together with the present pope in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome in a mighty ecumenical council, we have the "church." All of these events, be they in individual houses, aboard ship, in Rome, wherever, we have THE CHURCH, DHK!
We are simply 2000 years ahead of you, DHK!
Nevertheless, I see Christ looking favorably on your community in love and charity as well, not denying you anything you may ask of Him, in your innocence of the first and true church He established. At least you have the bible that His Church made available for you, which is good.
I wish you and your Christian community the best God has to offer, DHK…
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Almighty and eternal God, you gather
the scattered sheep
and watch over those
you have gathered.
Look kindly on all who follow Jesus,"
your Son.
You have marked them
with the seal of one baptism,
now make them one
in the fullness of faith
and unite them in the bond of love.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.
Amen.
I just love the way this is spoken of, in a minimization of the authority, Christ obviously gave His church! I agree that there was a "church" in Aquilla and Precilla's house, just as I would have a "church" in my own house today if my pastor were to come in and say Mass for us in my house!
I do not intend to demean your words, DHK, only to put them into what I consider to be a proper prospective…
When I was on a camping trip with my family, pop-tent camper behind a Volkswagen bus, in the middle of Utah, we had Catholic Masses in individual homes. Just as you describe here for the Baptists!
I last commented:
When we all gather inside of St. John's Catholic Church (My parish) here in Warrington, FL, we have the "church." If we gather outside, in the open air, and celebrate the "Lord's Supper," we have the "church." And if a Catholic Chaplain says Mass (sorry, I must revert to my more modern meaning here) on the fantail of a ship, we have the "church." And if all the bishops gather together with the present pope in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome in a mighty ecumenical council, we have the "church." All of these events, be they in individual houses, aboard ship, in Rome, wherever, we have THE CHURCH, DHK!
And like the acorn into a mighty oak my Church has progressed, it was also a simple "assembly" as you say. And in my parish, it is still an "assembly of believers" believers in Catholicism which describes our doctrines and beliefs. What happened in your church community perfectly describes how it was with the original infant church, from a small acorn to a mighty oak it grew to what it is today!
We are simply 2000 years ahead of you, DHK!
Nevertheless, I see Christ looking favorably on your community in love and charity as well, not denying you anything you may ask of Him, in your innocence of the first and true church He established. At least you have the bible that His Church made available for you, which is good.
I wish you and your Christian community the best God has to offer, DHK…
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Almighty and eternal God, you gather
the scattered sheep
and watch over those
you have gathered.
Look kindly on all who follow Jesus,"
your Son.
You have marked them
with the seal of one baptism,
now make them one
in the fullness of faith
and unite them in the bond of love.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.
Amen.
Oh no! A good and honest priest receives Christ and exposes the evils of the RCC! (whatever that is)
In case you really don't know, the Chiniquy book is just another in a long line of anti-Catholic slanders. You can buy it from Jack Chick, if that tells you anything.
CHINIQUY DEBUNKED
MORE CHINIQUY
So, are you interested in truth or slander? </font>[/QUOTE]From the way yoiu write I would assume you have read the book. Or have you just read what someone else wrote about the book.
What I read about what was written was very poor. Several of the things I read as criticism about Chiniquy would not agree with my personal experince in the RCC. It would coincide with Chiniquy. The critic uses present tense reasoning to criticize something of the past culture. Hermeneutics dictates that when you interpet something in past tense that it must be ingterpreted in light of its historical context. Therefore the critic on the basis of his own ignorance demonstrates such poor methodology. He is acting much like someone who is trying to win a point at the ignorance of others. He is not even making an honest attempt to do careful work.
Again I ask you to point out personally where Chiniquy is wrong historically. Could you give me examples from your personal copy? </font>[/QUOTE]My personal copy!?
Luckily (or unluckily), Chiniquy is available all over the net, so that's my "personal copy." Worth every dime, too.
Here's just one example of a non-religious refutation of Chiniquy:
CHINIQUY AND LINCOLN
The summary:
It is clear that Charles Chiniquy met Lincoln in 1856 in Urbana and engaged his legal services. The facts of the case differ significantly, however, from those reported in Chiniquy's autobiography. As to the three separate interviews in Washington, it is reasonable to assume that the first two never took place. If a third did occur, it was for the purpose of obtaining a charitable contribution from the President. One may also conclude that Lincoln never offered Chiniquy a post in the foreign service, nor did he engage the former priest in long conversations about the Bible and assassination plots. [44]
As the by-no-means-exhaustive list of pamphlets and books cited in this essay suggests, Chiniquy's charges against the Catholic church will be kept alive by sectarian battlers disposed to believe what was said in Fifty Years in the Church of Rome. [45] Scholars, however, even when tempted to use less sensational passages from Chiniquy's book, should be wary. There is no evidence to support his claim that he was a close friend of the Sixteenth President.
But thanks for the inspiration to start a new thread. Keep an eye out for it.