Jed you said:
Except logic would ask if there are 13 apostles the 12 and Paul why would you send the 12 to minister to a 2 million people and the other guy (or two if you want to be specific and include Barnabas) to 1 billion? And how can it be a misuse ...of scripture when Paul repetitively make a big deal of being the apostle to the gentiles.Facebook stinks for these sort of conversations. I cant even figure out how to link to our conversation over there. I am linking to my blog so I can use bold and quoteblocks and such. You said: “why would you send the 12 to minister to a 2 million people and the other guy ... to 1 billion?” I don't know. It wasn't me who sent them. ;-) Why did God make mosquitoes? Doesn't seem “logical” to me, but He did. What are you saying here though, I am not sure?
Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
1Ti 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
2Ti 1:11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
He also specifically mentions that he has a special message.
1Co 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
The word dispensation is the Greek word Oikonomia which means rules of administration.
I think there is an error of assumption in your question though Jed, that the 12 and Paul have separate ministries to the point of different gospels. Just because Paul is sent to the gentiles does not mean he is is exclusively ministering to gentiles. And we see in scripture he is not. He always goes to the synagogue first when coming to a town. He preaches to many Jews AND gentiles the same message of grace in Christ. (which includes repentance and is also called the gospel of the kingdom by him)...”testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Acts 20:21) Acts 20 is an awesome example of this. Read the whole portion of v17-32 and it is real clear. I will bold the sections I think are very pertinent to our discussion.
From Miletus he (St. Paul) sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church. And when they had come to him, he said to them: “You know, from the first day that I came to Asia, in what manner I always lived among you, serving the Lord with all humility, with many tears and trials which happened to me by the plotting of the Jews; how I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you, and taught you publicly and from house to house, testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. And see, now I go bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit testifies in every city, saying that chains and tribulations await me. But none of these things move me; nor do I count my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my race with joy, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears. So now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.” (Acts 20:17-32).
Notice that for Paul, the "gospel of the grace of God" and the "kingdom of God" are the same thing. Not only that, but Paul's gospel includes repentance. So "Paul's gospel" is the same as "peter's gospel". The only difference is one of mission. Paul's mission was to go to the gentiles, something that was revealed to him, yes. And something that was a mystery. It was also revealed to Peter of course in the incident with Peter preaching to Cornelius (a gentile), and was quite a mystery to him as well.
You said:
And how can it be a misuse ...of scripture when Paul repetitively make a big deal of being the apostle to the gentiles.The misuse I was referring to was Stam in chapter 9 of Things that Differ When all Galatians 2 says is that Peter, James and John "gave to me [Paul] and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision:" and it also shows how Paul corrected Peter's hypocrisy.
I then said:
That is a lot to get out of that verse. Just because they are focusing on different groups of people does not mean there are 2 "programs" or gospels any more than being a missionary to Borneo means there is a special "Borneo" program different from other gospels. This is simply a misuse of scripture.So I stand by my statement that that is a misuse. It is reading into the scripture to say they preached different gospels in Gal. 2. Even the "withstood Peter to the face" part of Gal. 2 merely shows hypocrisy on Peter's part. Where in the world does it show a handing on of (or losing of) the authority of the keys? Where does it show that different gospels were being preached? All it shows is that Paul and Barn were sent to preach the ONE gospel to to gentiles. Other than the Stam scripture in Gal.2, the scriptures you give show that Paul's mission was to the gentiles. You are right Jed when you say:
"Paul repetitively make a big deal of being the apostle to the gentiles."
Yes, yes, yes he does make a big deal about it. And I can't think of any Christians who deny that he is the apostle to the gentiles! But what he does not do is say that his apostleship is to preach a different gospel, which really is the only disagreement between your religion and mine (and other non-ultra-dispensationalist Christians) The scripture you give simply do not show what you need to show: that he had a unique gospel in its content and not merely in it's recipients. I really think this is what you are trying to show right? Here are the verses you give one by one followed by my comment:
Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:His calling is to go to the gentiles, and that it is an important calling. Nothing here about a different gospel from that of Peter and the 12. Next one:
1Ti 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.His mission is to preach, and to be an Apostle, and to go to the gentiles. Nothing here about a different gospel from that of Peter and the 12. Next one:
2Ti 1:11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.Again, his mission is to preach, and to be an Apostle, and to go to the gentiles. Nothing here about a different gospel from that of Peter and the 12.
These next scriptures you preface with the following:
"He also specifically mentions that he has a special message:"
So let's see the special (by which I will assume you mean different) message.
1Co 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.So he is a minister of the gospel. I mean, he even says THE gospel! Nothing here about a different gospel from that of Peter and the 12.
Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:Again, he has been given the task of "dispensing" or administering, or preaching THE gospel to the gentiles. Who disagrees with that? Nothing here about a different gospel from that of Peter and the 12.
Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;Same as the other verses, he has been made a minister of the gospel. Is he special? Yes. He is one of the greatest men who have ever lived! He was given one of the most important tasks ever given to anyone, to bring gentiles into the Church. But nothing here about a different gospel from that of Peter and the 12.
So I think I have shown that the verses you provided do not say what you think they say (that Paul preached a different gospel from that of Peter and the 12). In addition I provided evidence from Acts 20 showing that Paul's gospel included repentance, was called the gospel of the kingdom AND the gospel of grace, was aimed at Jews AND gentiles, and was described as being received from God, all written to the same bishops of the same local church, in the same chapter of scripture. I'll throw in Acts 26:20:
First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.
But to get back to the original point of all this, none of what you provided shows how the keys were lost by Peter. If you say (with Stam) that Peter had the keys at some point, I think you need to show when they were lost. Paul pointing out Peters hypocrisy did not somehow do it. Paul being given a mission to the preach the gospel to gentiles does not do it. So what does it? When did Peter lose the keys?
It isn't about the keys (nor do I care if Peter ever had / lost / found / made his own keys). Christ mentions the keys in one passage in Mathew, apparently giving them to Peter. Not more than 10 verses later, he is calling Peter "Satan" and telling him to quit obstructing him.
ReplyDeleteWhat this comes down to is who's church is "the church" and has more authority. The reformation wasn't necessarily about doctrine. It was primarily about abuse. People were abused by a Catholic church, and decided that leaving that abusive church was better than sticking with it.
The intent (back then) was to re-join the catholic church once it had appropriately reformed (and an apology would be nice). After said split, both sides have remained firm in their arrogance. The Catholics wave Papal Succession around, and the Protestants keep viewing them as the same abusive church they left 500 years ago (a bit of choir boy molestation reaffirms that belief in this generations mind).
The important thing is communion. Catholics should make considerable effort to commune with their protesting brethren. Likewise, protesting brethren need to get of their Pope Hate and commune with their Catholic brethren. Eventually, the two may again re-unite under one church hierarchy again.
One thing we can learn is that sin has consequences. The RC church sinned gravely 500 years ago, and they lost the support of generations of protestants as a result of that. Instead of being a rock, it is just another Christian shard vying for converts.
Well Bob, you not caring is not a good argument. The fact is, the early Church cared a ton. And there were PLENTY of proto-Protestants that broke away in the early days of the Church, the Reformation was not the first. The whole point of Optatus' writings against the Donatist heretics was to bring them BACK into the Church. And the reasoning he gives is that the Church is where the Bishop of Rome is. This is in the 300's Bob. We can go to Irenaeus in the 100's and he is saying the same thing to the heretics of his day. Ignatius says the same in 107. We can go to Cyprian, Augustine, the list goes on. So I suppose you think they all got it wrong then. Cn you see how that seems kind of dubious to me? Why would you be right and them wrong?
ReplyDeleteAlso what was the "grave sin" 500 years ago? Selling indulgences? That was admitted to be an abuse, appologized for, and BANNED at Trent back in the 16th century. Wanting the Church to be populated by people who never sin is just not a realistic expectation Bob. The Catholic Church does not and has never claimed that it's leaders do not and will not sin.
"Catholics should make considerable effort to commune with their protesting brethren"
When people totally disagree on doctrine, how can they commune at the same altar? (or table?) Being polite is one thing, but what it sounds like you want is a Christianity devoid of any absolutes. I can invite Josh Moon to come to mass with me all day long. He WONT GO because he thinks (based on his interpretation of scripture) that the mass is idolatry! So much for making considerable effort to commune with him. Christ prayed the Church would "be one". Catholics believe that Jesus prayer cannot fail. The Church must be (and is) one. Otherwise you are left with a church that has multiple doctrines, and multiple competing hierarchies (sounds like Protestantism). Well, the church cannot be like that Bob. It must be one. The only place it is ONE is the 52% of Christians that are Catholic. They have one hierarchy and one doctrine. The only hope for the unity of all christians is to unite under that unity. I mean come on man, you must admit it is ludicrous to imagine protestants ever getting together under one doctrine and government. Histort is the opposite and it gets more divisive all the time.
-Dave
Bob, was St. Irenaeus off the mark in 180 AD? Remember, nobody challenged his claim elsewhere that the Church is with Peter.
ReplyDeleteSt. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon in 180 AD:
“It is incumbent to obey the priests who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate [bishops], have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (Against Heresies, 4:26:2)
I will need some very good reasons to trust your word over his.
-David
Regarding Stam, I completely agree with him and you. Peter was given the Keys but this was before Paul was even saved on the road to Damascus so I fail to see what difference I makes. All authority was transferred (for our dispensation) to Paul. Peter will once again (with the other 11) sit on a throne judging the twelve tribes.
ReplyDeleteJed
David considering the amount of debate over the word of God in English. (vaticanus, textus receptus, etc.) I have to ask how we have the works of the early church fathers in english with no questions asked about the validity and/or the accuracy of the translations.
ReplyDeleteJed
The writings of the fathers arent in english. Since English was not even a language what we have are translations. And like the scripture itself, we don't have originals. What we have are in greek or latin. And Jed, vaticanus and textus receptus arent in English either (I know you know that). But that really does not matter a wink. The scholars in the actual field of studying the fathers of the church can read them in the original languages. Many of them are Germans or French or whatever anyway so translations are really not the issue. Their authenticity is determined the same way we determine it for any historical test. And like biblical critics like the Jesus Seminar, if you want to question a text, then there is nothing stopping you. But if you want to question a text REASONABLY, then that is a different matter. So I caution you here Jed. Don't fall into the trap of giving a blanket suspicion to these texts of the early church. That is not becoming of you, and you (and the vast majority of conservative Protestants) are better than that. It is "the easy" way out of explaining some of the troublesome passages for Protestants to jusr dismiss the texts as suspect. Or to dismiss the men themselves as suspect.
ReplyDeleteClement's epistle, for instance, was used as scripture in the Corinthian church (and other churches) for centuries until the canon was codified. It is referred to by many other fathers in seperate writings in time and place. So we can be per-darn-sure that what we have is authentic. In fact, more sure than 3 John or Jude probably. And like scripture, much of the early church's writings have various copies that we can compare for acuracy. If a 5th century greek copy matches up with a 14th century Latin copy, that lends a lot of credence to the authenticity of the text. There are surprisingly few where the authenticity is questioned. The thing I look for is if it is questioned by Protestants since the Reformation. They have the biggest reason to question the authenticity of much of it because some of the writings make them look bad. So the fact that the vast majority are never questioned by even very conservative (James White, Sproul) people, let alone by conservative Protestant SCHOLARS that work directly in the field of determining the acurracy, really surprised me. If someone has every reason theologically to not like what, say, St. Irenaeus says, and they have a lifetime of study in the field of ancient liturature preservation, yet they fully accept the authenticity of St. Irenaeus writings, to me that does not get more certain. Without entering the field of study myself, why would I question the judgement of the majority of scholars from BOTH the Catholic and Protestant side, both liberal and conservative, Baptist and Reformed, etc.
For instance, when I first read St. Irenaeus book Against Heresies, I was shocked at how Catholic it was. I ASSUMED that when I looked at Protestant views of it, that they would question the authenticity of the text itself and say it is a fake from the middle ages. But they don't! They fully admit it is authentic, but try to explain the Catholic stuff away. Some on the "ecclesial deism" side of things will just dismiss everything exept scripture as full blown heresy. But it gets really hard to stomach to thingk of people taught directly by the apostles (Ignatius, Clement, writer of the Didache) going so wrong, so early, without any complaint from the rest of the churches.
continued...
Clement's epistle was circulated among ALL the churches for instance. So were the letters of Ignatius. And nobody complained about the contents, in fact they loved it. A generation later, we have Irenaeus saying even more explicitly Catholic things, and claiming continuity with the earlier fathers, and there is NOT A PEEP of anyone in the other churches questioning anything he says. In fact the opposite is the case.
ReplyDeleteSo Jed, if you want to look at the Greek or Latin of texts I quote and make your own translation, good luck to you, but I would stick to the experts (many of which are Protestants!). For instance, the quote from Augustine on the left sidebar of my blog, is from a poem or “song” he wrote to the Donatist schismatics:
“You know what the Catholic Church is, and what that is cut off from the Vine; if there are any among you cautious, let them come; let them find life in the Root. Come, brethren, if you wish to be engrafted in the Vine: a grief it is when we see you lying thus cut off. Number the Bishops even from the very seat of Peter: and see every succession in that line of Fathers: that is the Rock against which the proud Gates of Hell prevail not.”
St. Augustine to the schismatic Donatists
A.D. 393 Patrologia Latina 43.30
http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/02m/0354-0430,_Augustinus,_Psalmus_Contra_Partem_Donati,_MLT.pdf
(go to page 30 and look on the right side about the middle of the page)
No one argues the authenticity of this text as far as I know Jed. Augustine wrote in Latin, so what you see there on the page are the words he wrote. And it seems pretty clear the point Augustine is making to convince the Donatists to stop their schism. And Bishop St. Augustine is writing to the same schismatics that Bishop St. Optatus did a few years earlier, from the same part of north Africa. No one questions their reasoning Jed. NOT EVEN THE DONATISTS! The Donatists go so far as to set up a bishop IN ROME to pretend they have the keys! They don't question that Rome is the principle of unity for the Church, instead they try to usurp the seat in Rome.
Peace,
-David
I will get to the Stam/Peter-Key-losing issue later today if I can.
ReplyDelete-David
Why is it unbecoming of me to question the translators of the early church fathers? God promises to preserve His word but I don't remember anything about him making the same promise about the church fathers. We did a college course on manuscript evidence and I will tell you, there is a lot of questions and a tremendous amount of work that goes into it. There is also a lot of corruption when men and money are involved.
ReplyDeleteJed
Ok, well if you have any specific complaints against certain documents, then we can deal with them. Do you have any problems with the document from St. Optatus for instance?
ReplyDelete-David
I wrote out another comment with blockquotes and such and couldnt post it here for some reason. I am beginning to dislike blogger. so sorry, but my next comment is in a new post.
ReplyDelete-David
Speaking of early church fathers, contrary to what the RC's preach - Augustine, Cyprian and others hold the view that "the rock" was not necessarily Peter the person, but "the rock" was Peter's confession "You are the Christ, the Son of thee Living God". Allowing that shift in view, we become co-rocks when we make the same confession. The keys don't belong to Peter alone, but to those who confess Christ (as The rock, the cornerstone). Lets not ignore the biblical evidence of Ephesians 2:20, which uses the same word "rock", but attributes it to all the apostles.
ReplyDeleteI could go on, but this link provides all the evidence I need:
http://www.the-highway.com/Matt16.18_Webster.html
Peter did confess Christ as Lord (and was the first apostle to do so), but that confession doesn't carry the weight of "soul arbiter of truth", nor is it sufficient justification for considering protestants as apostate.
As far as Moon goes, I disagree with him (if indeed he would refuse mass). I would take Mass (regardless of the doctrine of my local congregation). Binding and Loosing is meant to bind and loose us from sin, not divide the body. Unfortunately, I don't think the RC's would let me (or Moon) take mass. The table is fenced against my kind (not the other way around). My preference is a loose fencing of the table, something neither Presbyterians or Catholics agree with (strangely the "evangelicals" don't mind).
I hope that this isn't seen as attempting to thwart a new RC growing in their faith. I think it is fabulous that you have found a church home that is more suited to you than GSPC. What I hope, though, is that you stop viewing Protestants as 2nd class Christians. I don't believe that the multi-denomination cat will ever be put back in the bag, and telling Protestants that they need to return to the "true" church belittles their collective confessions spoken through Peter - that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.
"Ephesians 2:20, which uses the same word "rock", but attributes it to all the apostles."
ReplyDeleteNope, not the same word. I wouldnnt doubt if Webster said it was though, he is quite unreliable and inacurate. I recommend reading the original sources Bob, not Webster. He twists and turns the fathers till they bleed.
At least in latin it is Angularum Lapidae in 2:20, petrum in mat. 16. And I am sure in greek it would also be different.
And it atributes it to Christ, not to all of the apostles. But yes, they are the "foundation". But yes, BOTH are the foundation. The apostles having authority does not negate Christ being the supreme authority. The problem here is the dichotomy you are assuming.
It is not either/or Bob. as if we need to either choose Christ or Peter. I fully agree that many, many fathers thought Peter's confession was the "rock". But what guys like Webster don't tell you is that those same fathers point to Peter himself, and sometimes Christ as ALSO being the rock. It was not either/or for them. Read Isaiah 22, which is what Christ is alluding to when he gives Peter the keys. Is Eliakim in competition with the king of Israel because he is the Prime minister? Ridiculous!
Same with Peter. Him having Christ's authority does not compete with Christ. And the fathers thought the same. For nearly every time you can show me a father who said Peter's confession was the "rock" I can show you the SAME father saying it was also Peter himself. That is because the confession Peter makes is said by Christ to have been given by the Father! This is what Peter's authority means, that when he confesses something, it will be from the Father. The catechism of the Catholic Church in 552 even says that in Matt. 16 the rock is Peter and his confession.
552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." Christ, the "living Stone", thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.
continued...
...continued
ReplyDeleteAs for Websters article, wierdly enough I read it last year. Suffice it to say, I have come to understand him to be a shiester. Too many things he give only half the story on and pretends that it is the whole story. His scholarship is also flakey Bob. Do you know he hold to the formal sufficiency of scripture? Something nearly no other Protestant would be silly enough to hold to.
The table is fenced the other way around Bob. If I told Josh I wanted to recieve the Lords Supper at this point, he would refuse me until I renounced my faith. And I don't fault him there.
"My preference is a loose fencing of the table, something neither Presbyterians or Catholics agree with (strangely the "evangelicals" don't mind)."
I wonder why you think it is strange? the reason they dont care is because they do not believe in sacraments, but only ordinances. To evangelicals, the bread and wine... er uh... grape juice are just that, bread and grape juice. And they don't DO anything, but merely provide a visual reminder of Christs sacrifice. So of course they could care less who eats it! Let the dog eat it for goodnes sake! When they are done, they THROW THE LEFTOVERS IN THE TRASH Bob. This sort of shows that they do not think it is Jesus.
"I hope that this isn't seen as attempting to thwart a new RC growing in their faith..."
Thwart away dude. You are one of the precious few people who even cares that I have become Catholic. Nearly no one from Good Shepherd even contacted me when we left.
"What I hope, though, is that you stop viewing Protestants as 2nd class Christians."
Ask your pastor what he thinks about Catholics. The WCF thinks the Pope is the antichrist Bob. So there is plenty of belitleing to go around. Like the Rodney King thing, just saying we should all get along is sort of naive. Not that you are naive, because I think you recognize that the separation of the various Protestant denominations shows no signs of healing. I just think you are far to pesemistic about the Church over all. You must admit Bob, uniting under a Church in apostolic succession is the only PLAUSIBLE way christians will ever unite. Sola scriptura just can never acomplish that.
And I can't stop inviting people to come to Christ in His Church Bob. Dosnt mean I hate them or even that I think they dont love Jesus. I know you do. I just want Christ's people to be united before the coming cultural catastrophe in the next few hundred years. I really believe the Catholic Church is the only hope for humanity, so when I tell you that you should become Catholic, it is because I care about you dude.
Feel free to try to make me a Protestant again. I want the truth. Wherever it leads. If Catholicism is a lie, then I will leave it. I tried my best to show that it was, but I couldnt.
"telling Protestants that they need to return to the "true" church belittles their collective confessions spoken through Peter - that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God."
If the Catholic Church IS what she says she is, then it is not belittleing but merciful and loving to tell them. And as much as I rejoice in anyone making that confession, it does not give them the authority to bind and lose in heaven. A Church like that would be the biggest multi-headed monster of conflicting authority in the worst fairy tale.
Peace dude,
Dave
I imagine that the table is fenced on both sides - to the detriment of both. Also, I place the coming cultural catastrophe much sooner than a hundred years - 1/2 that at best.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Catholicism (or Protestantism) being a lie - I don't think that the question is valid. It can be easily proven that protestants believe / do / behave contrary to God's will. Their doctrines have flaws, their assertions are wrong, and it shows in what they believe and how they live their lives. The fact that there are so many denominations proves that all protestants are failed human beings.
Unfortunately, the same can also be said of Roman Catholics. Their doctrines have been (and still are) flawed, their assertions are wrong, and it shows in what they believe and how they live their lives. The fact that the reformation happened proves that Roman Catholics are failed human beings.
My contention through this is that it isn't the RC's vs P's. We are all collectively and currently the Church universal and indivisible, the bride of Christ. The fact that saving grace is evident in both the RC and P churches proves that at the very least the holy spirit is present and working in both factions. This is the same holy spirit that preserves its church - apparently without regard to denomination. Not believing lies is a part of the sanctification process. That process has lead you to the RC church. I don't think my sanctification is taking me in the same direction.
"I really believe the Catholic Church is the only hope for humanity"
I don't. I believe that Christ is the only hope for humanity... and he does not confine his workings to the RC church. Trinitarian Baptizing, professing like Peter churches are all Christs church.
also - re-read 1 Peter 2. He specifically describes Christ as "the rock" - and we are all living stones. He then links our "being stones" together with "belief" - in vs 7. It is our confession that causes us to be rocks. Peter is a rock as a result of his confession. The church is built out of rocks.
ReplyDeleteSo the guy, who could be the first pope, instead of saying "I have the authoritae" (cartman impression) - says "Jesus is the rock".
"I wouldn't doubt if Webster said it was though, he is quite unreliable and inaccurate"
ReplyDeleteThis is the problem David. You seem to pick and chose your problem authors and problem texts.
Jed
"formal sufficiency of scripture? Something nearly no other Protestant would be silly enough to hold to."
ReplyDeleteExcept a dispensationalist. When you fail to rightly divide you get a mess. A mess that needs to be cleaned up by the church fathers. When you rightly divide there is no mess and there are few questions.
"You must admit Bob, uniting under a Church in apostolic succession is the only PLAUSIBLE way Christians will ever unite."
ReplyDeleteAnd when was the last time the church was united? I believe it was the dark ages when 3% of the population could read and 1% had access to scripture. Around this time they burned people at the stake for disagreeing with the Church or the King or whatever iteration of the two was in power at the time. Sorry but Iron sharpens iron. As Voltaire put it:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Sorry for the quick posts I worked 16 hours today, mostly in the sun; but the moon was shining when I was done.
Jed
Last comment first:
ReplyDeleteto Jed:
I had said, and you quoted:
"You must admit Bob, uniting under a Church in apostolic succession is the only PLAUSIBLE way Christians will ever unite."
Then you said:
"And when was the last time the church was united?"
I usually choose my words carefully and this is an example. I never said Church. And If you ever hear me say the Church is divided, please correct me. The Church is one, because Jesus prayed it would be one, and gave it the Holy Spirit to enable it to be one. Christians are divided, yes. Many have left the Church, or were born into communities that tell them the Church is evil.
"And when was the last time the church was united? I believe it was the dark ages when 3% of the population could read and 1% had access to scripture."
The Church has always been united. I can give you names and dates from real human history if you wish showing an unbroken line of bishops going back to the apostles. The Church could never be divided, and the fact that you claim it could shows how far Protstantism has veered off course. As far as your 3% literacy figure, i'll assume it is true, then I ask what does that matter? Can someone not be a Christian if they can't read? So it is irellevant. As far as the 1% having access to scripture, you are wrong. Please provide references to substantiate. The real figure is 100%. Two reasons:
1. Every Mass has an Old Testament reading, a Psalm, an epistle or other NT reading, and of course a gospel reading. Followed by a sermon of course. These readings rotate every 3 years or so so a Catholic hears the entire bible (all 73 books, not your 66) every few years.
2. For those that could read, many churches provided bibles to read. They would chain them down because they were worth tens of thousands of dollars a copy in today's money, but they were provided. There were also translations in the vernacular of nearly every european language in the "dark ages" as you call it. Including in English Jed. Having access was never the issue, preaching whatever one wanted and leading people astray was.
We can go down the list if you want Jed, as I am curently doing with the book you reccomended. Let's start with Bogomil in the 10th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogomilism
This proto-reformer fought against the abuses and excesses of the Church of his day... sounds good right? Unfortunately he was a gnostic (manicheanism) who believed that the devil created the world. Oh, and he was a Docetist concerning Christ as well.
The Paulicians? They were part gnostic as well, teaching that the evil god (demiurge) created the world, and that the world is evil. But wow, wikipedia them Jed, alot of their other beliefs track with your denomination. No water baptism, no veneration of Mary, they did not use any of the Old Testament and rejected much of the New. Their goal was to restore "the pure Christianity of Paul". Unfortunately Jed, they were heretics even by your account, so I would not want to cozy up to these guys.
continued...
...continued
ReplyDeleteI could go on with the Cathars and the rest. And Jed, about the burning at the stake, you do realize that that is a civil penalty in those days right? To keep law and order in a society the government can do that. Lets not be anachronistic and put the ideals of Thomas Jefferson back into the 11th century. Even the midaeval Protestants burned their share of Catholics when they got in charge in England Jed. In Fact they burned far MORE than the Catholics did. "Bloddy" Mary was not NEARLY as bloody as Elizabeth.
You would have been cheering right along with me, shoulder to shoulder, as Paulicians were burned Jed. They were not even Christians by your standard, and if we were mideval men, we would have been glad that our community was rid of their heretical poison. Obviously things are different nowadays for BOTH Prots and Catholics. We dont use capital punishment for religious convictions anymore, and Catholics are not even allowed to do that as part of a civil government anymore. Like selling indulgences, we have changed the rules of how to deal with heresy. JUST LIKE PROTESTANTS HAVE. But it is still heresy. So my point here is why do you bring up people being burned at the stake? Who from the "dark ages" (pre-1400's) do you think was not a heretic that was killed? When we get specific Jed, it will be quite hard for you to defend these heretics. It is much easier to just give the old blanket statement that "the big bad Church burned all these humble bible loving guys". But please feel free to give a specific incident and we can work from there. And for goodness sake, I hope you are not on the bandwagon with the anti-crusades crowd as well. Who say "the big bad Church attacked the inocent holy land filled with peace loving Muslims". Puh-leeese.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
As far as this quote from one of the most evil men in history, the son of satan Voltaire who foisted the enlightenment on the world, not even you believe this quote Jed. You simply would not defend certain views with your life. I for one would see Larry Flyn or Hitler swinging from a rope before I shed one drop of my blood for them to spew forth their crap. I think you would agree, therefore I don't think you believe your own quote. If you do, then we have far less in common than I thought, but I don't think you do, you are too smart to believe that liberal enlightenment crap.
-David
Working back to Jeds next comment:
ReplyDeleteI had said:
"formal sufficiency of scripture? Something nearly no other Protestant would be silly enough to hold to."
Jed responded:
"Except a dispensationalist. When you fail to rightly divide you get a mess. A mess that needs to be cleaned up by the church fathers. When you rightly divide there is no mess and there are few questions."
Jed, Jehovahs Witnesses believe they are "rightly dividing" the word. Other than merely saying "they are wrong", why should anyone believe that your small group (of perhaps 25-100 thousand?) has the right interpretation? You can say you don't care what anyone thinks, but that is really not a good apology for your faith. And simply saying you have "few questions" and there is "no mess" for you in your interpretation is not convincing. The Jehovahs Witness could say the same. Bridget's grandmother is a JW, and for her there is "no mess" and certainly "no questions".
I urge you to watch the following video. (i couldnt add it in these comments but am adding it to the main article above)
Concerning material/formal sufficiency:
Perhaps you misunderstand. It is just a fact that there are many aspects of our faith that while, YES, are in the bible, yet they are not spelled out like a line of the US constitution. Otherwise there would be no disagreement as to what it says Jed. If the bible said 1+1=2, there would be no disagreement, but it doesnt, it says "God made math, and math is logical".
Here is something from a Catholic apologist I like:
Catholic apologist Mark Shea:
Material sufficiency means that all the bricks necessary to build doctrine is there in Scripture. However, it also teaches that since the meaning of Scripture is not always clear and that sometimes a doctrine is implied rather than explicit, other things besides Scripture have been handed to us from the apostles: things like Sacred
Tradition (which is the mortar that holds the bricks together in the right order and position) and the magisterium or teaching authority of the Church (which is the trowel in the hand of the Master Builder). Taken together, these three things -- Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium -- are formally sufficient for knowing the revealed truth of God.
. . . those who hold to the formal sufficiency of Scripture warn darkly that setting Scripture in the context of Sacred Tradition will inevitably put Scripture under the Church. The fear, in fact, is that to admit the revelatory nature of Sacred Tradition will necessarily subjugate Scripture to merely human agendas.
(in Not by Scripture Alone, edited by Robert A. Sungenis, Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Pub. Co., 1997, chapter 4: "What is the Relationship Between Scripture and Tradition?," 169-210; quote from 181-182)
The [Trinity] can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always
been trinitarian. The Arians could not appeal to any such tradition because their christology was a heretical innovation of the 4th century.
continued...
...continued
ReplyDeleteThe Arians thus appealed to Scripture Alone. And that is the point Catholics make about this. The Arian formal principle was deficient, so that they could appeal to the Bible Alone and come up with Arianism (just like Jehovah's Witnesses do today). If they had held also to an authoritative Sacred Tradition, this could not have happened because the "tradition of Arianism" was
non-existent.
We claim that apostolic Tradition is necessary along with Sacred Scripture. This was the patristic principle, and how they invariably fought the heretics. The biblical arguments provided the "meat" of their arguments, but in the end they would appeal to the Tradition of "what had always been believed everywhere by everyone" (St. Vincent of Lerin's dictum -- the Commonitorium where this comes from is also the most explicit exposition of development of doctrine in the Fathers, and Newman's starting-point).
Edwin Tait, an Anglican, wrote (in substantial agreement with the Catholic view):
Of course the Fathers thought that they could prove their view from Scripture. They also thought that the historic communion of bishops in succession from the Apostles, gathered in Councils (with Rome playing some role, which I don't want to debate here), could be counted on to interpret Scripture correctly. The whole sola scriptura debate only became possible when a sizeable number of influential Christians began proclaiming that the bishops gathered in Council, in communion with Rome, had seriously erred in interpreting Scripture over a period of several centuries. Of course both sides can appeal to the Fathers, because the Fathers never thought of Scriptural sufficiency and the authority of the Church/Tradition as being at odds.
I agree wholeheartedly. The last sentence is key. This is the "both/and" outlook of the Apostles, Fathers, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and historic Anglicanism. Many Protestants, however, feel an immediate, logically- and biblically-unnecessary need to dichotomize the two. Entire books are written about the Fathers' supposed belief in sola Scriptura, when in fact they are merely expressing their belief in material sufficiency of Scripture, and its inspiration and sufficiency to refute heretics and false doctrine generally.
(me Dave again)
So can you see that formal sufficiency is just silliness? Material suficiency is simply saying that EVERYTHING is in scripture, but not in a way you can just pluck out a verse and it is obvious to everyone. Polygamy is a great example. You can't "proof text" (FORMALLY prove) to someone that polygamy is wrong for a christian in 2011. But I think we can agree that MATERIALY the scripture says it is wrong for christians.
Peace Jed,
-Dave
Working back to Jed's next comment:
ReplyDelete"This is the problem David. You seem to pick and chose your problem authors and problem texts."
1. You do the same thing, is it ok for you and not for me? You reccommended "the Pilgrim Church" as a good example of what you believe about church history. There are tons of other works on Church history by Protestants you could have mentioned. But you "picked and chose" thorugh what you saw as problem texts and presented the one you thought was not a problem. I do not fault you for that, and I assume you have good intentions and truly believe the material in "the Pilgrim Church" represents the closest to the truth of history. I can show you ways that Webster twists the fathers if you want Jed. So my picking and choosing is based on what I genuinely believe to be true, just like yours is.
So I am not sure what your statement here really has to do with anything. Since we both pick and choose, how about we just focus on the veracity of the things chosen rather than the fact that they are chosen.
I'll bite. I am on the anti-crusades bandwagon. Christs church is not primarily advanced by the point of the sword. Even Peter had to learn this when he struck off the high-priests ear. The command to the apostles when they find unfertile ground is not to burn the city down, but to leave it and kick the dust off their feet.
ReplyDeleteI had to learn these truths back in ~2005, and repent of my support of overseas domination by the US empire.
Christs church "may" by his mercy follow a warlike nation into conquered peoples, but that fact doesn't mean we should first pursue peace with all peoples. In most cases, death and destruction in the name of Christ slows down the advance of the Gospel.
The Crusades are a great example. Many a million Jew / Muslim / non-RC was slaughtered... and does the RC church have any greater presence in the "holy land" today than it did back when it waged those crusades? I don't think so. In fact, the RC's had to abandon their own "just war" theory in order to carry on the crusades - instead calling them acts of self-sanctification (war as sanctification... that's biblical...)
Thankfully, the RC church chose peaceful means when attempting to gain a footing in America. As a result, it exists side by side with both its protestant brethren, and those who have abandoned the faith.
Hello David, I would like to add a little note here, not having read all of the responses, just responding to the OP. In the first part of your response you quoted Acts. We have no argument there. We believe that our instructions are found in Romans-Philemon. I recently either read or watched a good sermon on the transitional period between the dispensation of law and the dispensation of Grace. If I can find it I will share it with you, but it would take a miracle for me to find it I'm sure. As for proving that Paul's gospel was different than that of the circumcision I know that Jed can do that but it would probably be better for sometime when it can be done face to face. Your talking about a whole Bible study session here and Jed doesn't have a lot of time to spend on the computer between jobs. Now I just wanted to make one observation as well. It seems, to me anyway, that you have no problem pulling out scriptures to refute Jed's claims, but when defending your own you defer to the authority of the Church fathers or tradition in stead of actual scripture. Now I have no problem with someone following church authority or traditions, except when one fails to "[search] the scriptures daily, whether those things [are] so" Act 17:11b. ~ Kendra
ReplyDeleteBob, What is fascinating (and you might know this) is that the crusades were an attempt by the Church to bring about the Resurrection.
ReplyDeleteJed
David in regards to textual accuracy the only preserved text in the history of the earth is the Holy Scripture. God promises to preserve it even as we try to pervert it. The rest of the authors from Augustine to Rob Bell are neither inspired nor preserved and are to be taken with a heavy grain of salt.
ReplyDeleteJed
RC's would probably deny that, Jed, seeing as anything said from the chair of Peter is also holy. Preservation of those words would fall under the "infallible word of God" clause in Gods promises to us.
ReplyDeleteIts really kind of convoluted - the Popes are God's authority and messengers, except for when they sin - which is determined by the test of time and tradition, not by solo scriptori. Thats how we end up with goofy doctrines about Mary (none of which are present in scripture), goofy doctrines about purgatory, the saints, and even authority - again, not reflected in the word of God. The fact is, the RC's need to go to the "church fathers" in order to get justification for a lot of these goofy doctrines.
The kicker is, they then proclaim that these goofy doctrines are the only hope for the Church - all you Protestants need to submit and rejoin.
It doesn't make much sense, logically or rationally. Again, I've got nothing against RC's, but it takes tremendous *cough* "fortitude" *cough* to accuse all other denominations of being apostate.
I haven't heard a rebuttal of 1 Peter 2, or of my remarks on how Christ can work through a church not his own (all of Protestantism.)
Keep it short too - 30 paragraph posts are hard to read.
Bob, I have a lengthy reply I just finished, it includes the stuff you mentioned above. I want to respond to each thing you bring up in a way I think does justice to the topics, so the more you throw out there, the longerthings get. I suggest focusing on a couple things. Above you say all kinds of stuff that either shows your ignorance of what Catholics believe, or that you are just wanting to do some "driveby" comments for a laugh. If it is the latter, I wont bother using my time to respond, if it is the former, I can set things straight.
ReplyDeleteFor instance above, you say "seeing as anything said from the chair of Peter is also holy. Preservation of those words would fall under the "infallible word of God" clause in Gods promises to us."
Just not true. not one word. I can elaborate if you wish.
"the Popes are God's authority and messengers, except for when they sin"
Again not one word true.
"Thats how we end up with goofy doctrines about Mary" etc... then you rattle off suposed doctrines.
Not true again. If you want to focus on one doctrine, I can show you the support for it. But epistemology should probably be talked about first. It is not as flashy and has less "one liners" though, so perhaps it wouldnt interest you if you cant read 30 paragraphs. ;-)
"It doesn't make much sense, logically or rationally..."
Blah blah, prove it. Anybody can use those words, but when you focus on one topic, and try to actually use logic, then we will get somewhere. Otherwise it is just ships passing in the night calling each other names.
I am game if you want to focus on one or two specifics. I suggest sola scriptura, or we could continue with one or two of the topics I address in the comment I just finished. I will post it soon, I just need to check something in it first.
Peace Bobby.
-David
This is not the article I was talking about but it is a good, clear, brief explanation of Acts and the transition between dispensations and a lot of the things you mentioned on this thread: http://www.matthewmcgee.org/dispguid.html
ReplyDeletePlease read. It's not long. Parts 1, 3, and 5 are most relevant. I'm still going to look for the other article.
~Kendra
Bob I replied in a new post:
ReplyDeletehttp://newchristendom.blogspot.com/2011/06/longish-reply-to-bob.html
Kendra, I will check it out. P.S. I am coming with the kids this weekend to my Mom's. Perhaps I will see you guys.
Cool! I think we have a wedding this weekend and Jed is on call so hopefully we'll still get to see you guys!
ReplyDeleteI read most of your other thread, and I think I am sufficiently done with this topic. RC's are content to dump every trinitarian baptizing Protestant denomination in with the JW's, Mormons, and Moslems. Doing so belittles the brothers in Christ, and attempts to condemn them for every whim of doctrine these other groups believe.
ReplyDeleteOn the other side, the RC's repeatedly say that "not one bit of doctrine is wrong". I'll pick the low hanging fruit and address the numerous issues with how RC's treat Mary. Eternal Virgin - something blatantly false, and no-where mentioned in the Bible. The RC's claim this - it is spoken from the Chair of Peter, it is false doctrine. You will never convince me from the Bible that Mary remained a virgin, as taught by your church - because it is false. I'm honestly surprised that you continue buying the BS about the insufficiency of the Bible (must have church authority supplement doctrine X). This is simple math - "Eternal Virgin not in Bible" - "RC teach eternal Virgin" = "RC heretics". Beyond that is speculation. That isn't even getting into the other lies and distortions about Mary (co-redeemer, assumption to heaven). The answers to these heresy come from "sacred tradition" - which is not something that holds much water with me. I'm OK with you believing it, but believing it with all your heart (along with the entire denomination of RC's) doesn't make it so.
That one easy example is enough for me too look at the RC's as just another denomination... with massive authority issues.
And like I said, I'm done.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteThanks for being clear about your interest here, perhaps it is best if you are done. Making assertions without backing them up is a poor way to communicate, that is more of a "facebook" style of discussion. Your one liners fit right in there.
Nice touch with the "I read most of your comment..." That is sort of frustrating to me. I took your concerns and questions seriously and made a serious response with arguments and a lot of elaboration. You could interact with those arguments if you want, I know you have the ability, so if you just don't have the time or don't care, please say it without dropping more unsubstantiated one-liners out there. One liners are for a status update on facebook, not a comment box where actual ideas can be discussed.
I write specific responses and ask specific questions and you ignore all of it and move on to... of all things... the perpetual virginity of Mary!!
How frustrating. If you want to comunicate, you need to respond in a back-and-forth manner, not ignore-and-change-topics. I like to think it is because my arguments were good that you couldn't respond to them, but I do not assume that. I think you have the ability to discuss things intelligently, so either do or do not. You seem to want to stick to your comfort zone and just toss out unsubstantiated one liners.
"I'm honestly surprised that you continue buying the BS about the insufficiency of the Bible (must have church authority supplement doctrine X)."
The bible contains every doctrine. In that sense it is sufficient. It is the inerrant, infallible, "God-breathed" Word of God. And as far your "chruch authority" comment here, "suppliment" is a mischaricterization, I never said that, and I am amazed how far YOU have strayed from the Reformation. Calvin and Luther and the rest would be right with me on the need for the Church to be the interpreter of the scripture. Nothing at all uniquely Catholic about that idea. Perhaps I never realized just how non-Reformed you are in your theology. I remember you said you wanted a church with no authority though, so I guess that makes sense with you going to an E.-Free church now. Certainly not much authority or *gasp!* DOGMA there.
Luther, Calvin, Zwingli believed the perpetual virginity, Let alone Athinasius and Augustine among many other father (of course you don't care what they thought it seems) many protestants believe it (based on scripture), there is awsome scriptural evidence of it, yet you choose that doctrine, OF ALL THINGS, as the supposed "low hanging fruit"!? Many Reformed people even believe it! I myself was not really on either side of that one. What in the world is the big deal about it?
You ignore all that I have provided, don't even read it all, and bring up yet another different topic. That's not how progress can be made in a conversation.
If you want to focus on a certain topic, and have some back and forth, let me know, i'm up for it. I would suggest responding to a few specifics from my post yesterday if you are interested. If not (which seems to be the case) That is fine as well.
It takes a little work to put your arguments into a form that they can be intelligently communicated (I am hit and miss on that) but it is worth it when you start to feel like you really understand where someone is coming from and can see the "issue" from their perspective, and to likewise be able to deal with the other persons arguments in a really self-examining way. If our goal is the truth, progress can be made.
Peace to you.
-David
Hi Kendra,
ReplyDeleteyou said:
"Now I just wanted to make one observation as well. It seems, to me anyway, that you have no problem pulling out scriptures to refute Jed's claims, but when defending your own you defer to the authority of the Church fathers or tradition in stead of actual scripture. Now I have no problem with someone following church authority or traditions, except when one fails to "[search] the scriptures daily, whether those things [are] so" Act 17:11b. ~ Kendra"
Well, first, of course we have different epistemologies. I don't go by sola scriptura (although I do think EVERYTHING is contained in scripture). And of course the scripture is God's Word, the fathers are not.
But Tradition is absolutely necessary to maintain the purity of the one faith. I could show you this from Tradition, but I can see how that seems circular to you. So here is a cut-n-paste of some scripture: (the article it comes from is a decent short defence of Apostolic Tradition as well if your interested)
http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp
Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2),
and he commands the Thessalonians,
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
He even goes so far as to order,
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).
To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy,
"[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).
In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.
As far as where the transition from the disp. of law to the disp. of grace, I would really like to focus in on that. The "epistemology" question will pop up as an issue constantly though, so I hope that doesnt hamper things to much. And that is where I was going with the Acts 20 reference and comentary. Seems to me that Paul mixes them up in his statement in Acts 20. (I explained in more detail in the post)
I will read the article you referenced today sometime.
Also btw, Doug was discussing Matt. 16:17-19 with me a while back and was making the more standard Protestant arguments against it (that Peter was not the rock, etc.) So I don't know if he realizes what Stam had to say about it. Or perhaps he disagrees with Stam. I just found that interesting.
Peace,
David
Kendra,
ReplyDeleteOops. I never got to the second point. I wanted to ask if you had an example of where I provided only evidence from Tradition in my defence and then scripture to refute Jed.
I don't doubt you! I just wanted to perhaps give a more well rounded response from scripture in the instance(s) you are talking about.
David, I am sure that it is frustrating that people don't read your posts in there entirety. I am generally frustrated by the same thing. However, I for one (and I can not speak for anyone else) don't have time to digest more than 2 paragraphs at a time. I just have too much other stuff on my plate. I work two jobs, sometimes around 13 hours a day and I have to mix it in with my bible study/ family time. Some times It is all I can do just to read all of the posts let alone study them or comment.
ReplyDeleteJed
Jed,
ReplyDeleteMakes sense. I relate somewhat. Although I stopped my second job because of lack of spare time for study/family. I felt like I was a mindless drone in a hive. I need time to study to be informed about things.
Point is THAT IS FINE if you or Bob or whoever don't have the time or desire to delve into things. But if you or him or whoever says "I think X" and it betrays a lack of study and needs correction, but then cant provide the defense, I suggest the comment should not have been made in the first place. "always be prepared to give a defence"... etc. There is nothing wrong with being a drone, work is good, but when people start really piping up with strong opinions, saying things that furrow brows, they should be prepared to defend it. Otherwise we might as well be on the Jerry Springer show.
David,
ReplyDeleteI get the epistemology thing, and the authority thing, it's just that I think that any official position held by the Church should be able to be backed up by scripture. As far as an example goes I would just compare the OP on this thread to just about any other post. You quoted a whole bunch of verses trying to disprove Jed but on most subjects if one of us were to say, "hey, that's unbiblical" you would point to tradition or authority or the writings of an early Church father (IE the blog you posted that started this most recent example). I have yet to meet a Catholic who can show me in the Bible where it says it is okay to pray to anyone other than God/ Christ. According to the Catholic Church it is MORE than okay. That one still befuddles me more than any other issue because if bowing in prayer, making statues/ images where in some cases people kiss the statues feet, repeating the same prayer while even using an artifact to facilitate prayer, and singing songs praising a person isn't worship I simply don't know what is. And the idea that she was sinless! Like I said, I find no problem with adhering to Church authority unless one can't point to scripture to back it up. AND if there is scripture that contradicts that scripture that must be resolved to, just to clarify that I'm not giving a pass to any wierdo who sacrifices animals or stones people to death in the name of scripture. That's where right division comes in.
Now, just to pipe in on the lengthiness issue, I don't think there is really an issue of Bob or Jed not being prepared to give a defense. I think it just feels sometimes like you are trying to win an argument by "out-winding" the other person if you know what I mean. If someone doesn't have a lot of time to sit at their computer reading an typing that doesn't mean they are less knowledgeable than you or don't have a right to pipe in. That's just my take.
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I very well may be, but I don't remember Stam ever agreeing that Peter is the rock. He agreed that Peter was given the keys, that's indisputable, but if he agreed that Peter is the rock I missed it. Speaking of Stam, Chapter 9 of Things That Differ also goes over the whole Acts/ transition thing. I haven't looked at the link you posted yet but I will later, I have to make dinner now, I lost track of time an Jed has a 1 hour dinner window. So, 'til next time....
~Kendra
"I get the epistemology thing, and the authority thing, it's just that I think that any official position held by the Church should be able to be backed up by scripture."
ReplyDeleteThats the epistemology thing. Although I agree everything should be backed by scripture, and I think every doctrine of the Church can be, The WHO is the episemological question I am talking about. Who's view of what scripture is saying? Having been totally enmeshed in 4 diffeent scriptural interpretive frameworks throughout my life so far, (Pentecostal, Shepherds Chapel, Reformed, Catholic) I am just so wary of anyone telling me "thus says the Lord" Kendra. That includes myself. I have just known too many awsome christian people that love the Lord yet disagree on doctrine. Each one believes they have it all figured out and knows exactly what the bible is saying, and each one sounds right to different extents. But they can't all be. How do I choose between them Kendra? I'm just a flunky like the rest of humanity. Why should I trust my abilities to discerm the truth?
That is the epistemology issue I was talking about.
More sucinctly, it boils down to a question- Where does the bible say that ONLY the bible is a valid source of Gods revelation?
Once I answered that question and came to the horifying (at the time) answer, I started looking at how the early Church did things. They saw scripture as PART of the Apostolic Tradition. They revered scripture (which is why we have it today!), and revered it so much that they interpreted it through the lens of the Tradition handed down from the Apostles.
As for the "out-winding" thing. Yeah, I can be windy. But hopefully in the wind are some valid points. I think I made some good points that Bob never responded to. I will let the reader decide. If they werent good, Bob did not tell me how they werent though.
Likewise with Jed, he (for instance) made a comment about the reliability of the writings we have of the church fathers. Well, I asked if there were any specific ones he had in mind. He didnt respond. Now hey, I KNOW he is busy. And that is cool if he does not respond, absolutely, I understand, and I am not claiming victory like I won the argument or something. He could have some awsome evidence of his claim. If he cant get the time to provide it, hey, no problem.
But when there are 6 issues on the table, (like there were with Bob) and it takes 4 paragraphs per issue for me to be comfortable with my comment, it is going to be a looooong comment! The onlt solution to that is to FOCUS on one thing at a time. That is how it is done on most theology discussion blogs, and it is the only way to do it.
For instane you brought up Mary!
Do you want to talk about Mary? I am ok with it if you do, But that one topic may take a page or two of response, to which you may have a response. It could be fruitful (I think it would), but we would have to focus on that issue, and leave the epistemology and the disp. of law/disp. of grace issues.
One thing I refuse to do is do the "one liner" thing like Bob seems to love. It is just not productive, and ends up being about scoring points and such. Serious topics should not be discussed that way by Christians, it will lead to sin.
-Peace
It occurs to me that I should clarify that by "out-winding" I am referring to wind as in, "the wind blows", not "don't forget to wind your watch". Just to clarify on my made-up word.
ReplyDelete~Kendra
Yeah, I understood. I'm so long winded because I am so filled with the Holy Spirit!
ReplyDeleteScratch that last post, you obviously got my meaning. Hey I hear ya. Online sometimes it's just impossible to respond to everything, especially when you've got multiple people coming at you from different angles, like Jed did with the UR guys. I would love to talk about the Mary thing, but maybe it would be better to save it for when you're here and we can all sit down at the table again. To answer the first half of your last response, that's another Bible study in itself. I do have some thoughts though. For one, Jesus and the writers of the canon frequently quoted other scripture. They never quoted works outside of scripture and they never instructed anyone to follow doctrine not found in scripture. Also, and this is just a thought, I have a hard time believing that God would have included everything he DID in scripture and yet leave anything he wanted us to know or follow out. And again, as far as differences in interpretation go I would never expect anything else. I've said this before but, Satan is roaming the earth and he wants to keep us divided. He doesn't bother with those already lost because he doesn't need to. Personally one of the reasons I adhere to mid-acts dispensationalism now is that when I follow the model (basically, the 5 W's they taught us about in elementary school), all of those hard questions no one ever seemed to have hard answers to before answer themselves. No need to ponder up my own interpretation. Back when I went to a warm and fuzzy, wishy washy, pseudo-baptist church and was attending pentecostal youth group events if someone pointed out to me a contradiction I couldn't answer them. Now I can. The model gives consistent results every time. A while back you compared the Church to the Constitution. I was glad you brought it up and was writing a response before I got sick and lost my steam. My point was that while we have offices set up for the purpose of protecting and defending the Constitution, and the people holding those offices are given a certain authority to interpret the Constitution, and even though we have a system of checks and balances, our Government has, does, and will continue to twist the Constitution to fit their agenda. When a socialist liberal person throws some bill at me showing that some socialist law was passed in the early 1800s or maybe even earlier, it means nothing to me because I know that even though the ink wasn't even yet dry on the Constitution, people were already warping it. But even though the founding fathers did there best to preserve our foundation as long as possible and people STILL mess it up doesn't mean we should throw out our current system in exchange for a monarchy or an oligarchy, where our own interpretation and opinion doesn't matter because the King (or whatever) has some sort of supreme authority. Your standards of authority seem man made to me. I don't see a resemblance between the Catholic Church and the Body of Christ described in the Bible. It just seems to me like a person would have to have more faith in the Church Fathers than in Christ to follow the Catholic Church.
ReplyDelete(I'm windy too)
~Kendra
Rom 10:13-14,17 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
...So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
I actually did answer the question about the church authors but in a round about way. My answer is I don't know of any specific texts that I have a specific problem with but I know (through study of manuscript evidence regarding bible translation/preservation)that translators Catholic, protestant and secular often twist and distort things to fit their own agendas. Because of that I have very little trust (think Webster) of early authors or I should say the translators of early authors.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the analogy to the constitution I have but one quote.
ReplyDelete"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson --
Jed,
ReplyDeleteWhen you are saying "translators" are you meaning it in the sense of "interpreters"? For instance, the quote from Augustine on my sidebar (in red) I translated myself. (or verified the translation) directly from latin. Augustine wrote in latin.
I think perhaps you are confusing reliability of the manuscript with what is being said. For instance you included Rob Bell when you said:
"The rest of the authors from Augustine to Rob Bell are neither inspired nor preserved and are to be taken with a heavy grain of salt."
The authenticity of Rob Bell's book is 100% Jed. The theology is trash, but the text is authentic. 2 different things. Likewise with Augustine, we have TONS of his writing, (he is loved by Protestants and Catholics) and the physical evidence is overwhelming that what we have is what he wrote. Of course he is not inspired, nor inerrant, (I can show you mistakes in his writing) but still very important. His writings against the Pelagians and the Donatists for instance, really give us a window into Christianity in his day (354-430)
For just one instance, I can almost guarantee that the way you interpret the scriptures concerning "original sin" comes from the way Augustine did it. (eastern Christians interpret them differently, because they were not as influenced by Augustine.)
So my long winded point here is that if there is a problem with a particular text (translation or interpretation), that is one thing, but if I quote St. Ignatius' epistle to the Ephesians from 107AD, it should be accepted as authentic unless you can present evidence it is not. Because there is lots of positive evidence that it is authentic.
You could argue Ignatius made mistakes, after all he did not make it into the cannon (although he was read as scriture for hundreds of years), but don't you think a Bishop writing a generation after the Apostles, to the same local church Paul wrote to, about the same issues, giving the same instructions as paul with different nuance and wording, with the ENTIRE Church from east to west accepting his 7 letters with praise, don't you think those letters can shed light on what the faith of the Apostles was? He says things about the divinity of Christ and the Trinity for instance, that are wonderfully clear and specific to the heresies of his day. This shows us that the early Christians were interpreting the scripture (even as early as 107AD) in accord with orthodox Christology. This is super important, because it confirms what we know about the scripture. Dan Brown and Jehovas Witnesses HATE guys like Ignatius Jed! And THEY question his authenticity. We true Christians should not.
These are the original Christians who SAW the apostles in the flesh. Don't you think that when the entire Church of their day accepts their writings that those writings can help us INTERPRET the bible so as to not stray from what the Apostles intended to convey?
My question was “Where does the bible say that ONLY the bible is a valid source of Gods revelation?”
ReplyDeletePart of that question includes ”where does the bible say what the bible is composed of?” but I will assume for now(ONLY for the sake of argument) that the Protestant 66 book canon has been shown from scripture. (I maintain that it cannot)
You answered:
“For one, Jesus and the writers of the canon frequently quoted other scripture.”
True, but at most that shows that those books are, or might be scripture. (Ex. Jesus quoting Psalm 22) And it shows that scripture is good for “knowledge and reproof,”… etc. It does not show that only scripture is a source of revelation.
“They never quoted works outside of scripture…”
You might be surprised to learn that is not true. For one thing the Jews were a culture based partly on oral Tradition, but I don't want to get side tracked on that. I will mention in passing Moses however. In Ex. 3:6, when God says “I Am the God of your father, the God of Abraham... Isaac...Jacob...” Moses knew who those dudes were. And when Moses goes and tells all Israel, they all knew too. And how did he know all the stories in Genesis?... It was passed down through tradition, that is how. Same inspired revelation, just oral.
And in Acts 7:52-53 Stephen says “you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels...”
Paul in Gal. 3:9 “The law was put into effect through angels.”
Paul in Hebrews 2:2-3 “for if the message spoken by angels was binding.... how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation?”
So where in the Old Testament does it say angels mediated the law? It doesn't. It is an extra-biblical tradition. And it is attested to by Josephus in two of his works that this was Jewish tradition.
Check out 2 Tim. 3:8-9 “Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men opposed the truth...” Check your concordance Kendra. Jannes and Jambres are not anywhere in the Old Testament. But Tradition says they are the Egyptian magicians that opposed Moses. AND Paul is assuming Timothy will know who he is talking about. In fact it was something lots of first century Jews knew. SO... how did they know this? From extra-biblical tradition. The same way Moses knew how to write Genesis.
In John 10:22-36, not only do we see Jesus celebrating Hanukkah, from the book of Maccabees, but he makes reference to the book when he speaks of Himself being “set apart” or consecrated, just as Judas Maccabeus “set apart” the Temple in the book of 1 Maccabees 4:36-59, and 2 Maccabees 10:1-8. Of course these books are not Apocryphal for Catholics or Orthodox, but it is for you. I have other examples of deutero-canonical (apocrypha) references by Jesus and the apostles if you want 'em btw.
Remember in St. Jude when he says the stuff about the Archangel Michael disputing with the devil concerning the body of Moses? Where in the world is that in scripture? It isn't. It is from a book called the assumption of Moses that did not make it into ANYONE'S bible.
Also St. Jude 14-15, which St. Jude describes as “prophecy”, so we know it is inspired, but it too is nowhere in the OT. It is from a book called Enoch that didn't make it into anyone's bible either.
1 Corinthians 15:33 “Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character”. Paul quotes the Greek poet Menander.
Acts 17:28 “we are His offspring.” Paul quoting the pagan poet Aratus.
Also Acts 17:28 “in him we live and move and have our being”. Paul quote the pagan poet Epimenides.
Titus 1:12 Paul quotes Epimenides and calls him a prophet!
continued...
...continued
ReplyDeleteHebrews 11:36 Paul refers to prophets being killed in various ways and one of the ways is being “sawn in two”. This is from a book called The Ascension of Isaiah where at 5:1-14 it records that Isaiah was killed this way.
OK, I will stop now. I hope this is enough evidence to disprove your claim that “They never quoted works outside of scripture…” and I bet you found this stuff interesting. (I know I did) And my point here is to show that when it comes to revelation from God, it is the Tradition handed down by the Apostles that matters, not how it gets to us.
“and they never instructed anyone to follow doctrine not found in scripture.”
Actually they did, as Paul says in 2Thes 2:15, we should:
“Stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”
It is the Apostolic message that is revelation, whether oral or written. Paul is clear about that. He explicitly does instruct them to follow doctrine not found in scripture. Paul even pushes the time in which this oral teaching is to take place into the future:
2Tim2:2 “And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”
That is FOUR generations of apostolic succession passing on the apostolic Tradition!... St. Paul, St. Timothy, those he ordains, those they in turn ordain.
“I have a hard time believing that God would have included everything he DID in scripture and yet leave anything he wanted us to know or follow out.”
It is a different way of looking at it, and is hard not to see as “liberal” or something at first, like it is an attack on the bible. Where people are over in a corner saying “hey! Ignore the bible and come listen to this tradition! Mwahaha!” But the NT Church (and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches today) saw the bible as PART of the tradition, and saw the need for the bible to be interpreted within the tradition by those “faithful men who [were] able to teach others also”.
Sects like the Arians, who were anti-trinitarian heretics in the very early Church, used TONS of scripture to back up their claims. And honestly much of it I have sympathy for them. Their reasoning is good, and I think their motives were as well. But they were not in communion with that line of faithful men that were authorized to teach. They were not in the Apostolic line going back to men like Timothy. THAT is how the Church knew they were wrong. NOT merely because they thought their interpretation of scripture was wrong.
“Personally one of the reasons I adhere to mid-acts dispensationalism now is that when I follow the model (basically, the 5 W's they taught us about in elementary school), all of those hard questions no one ever seemed to have hard answers to before answer themselves.”
I hear ya. When I discovered Reformed theology, the bible seemed to come together like a huge jigsaw puzzle with no missing pieces! I Loved it. And I know people who have had that experience with Lutheranism, or mainstream Baptist theology as well. I nearly felt that way about Pentecostalism at one point in my life. So not to denigrate your experience, I love the fact that you have grown closer to our Lord and His word, but many people find the same comfort in interpretive systems that differ radically from ultra-dispensationalism. (if I can call it that, no offence) Which brings me to your next statement...
continued...
“No need to ponder up my own interpretation.” And... “The model gives consistent results every time.”
ReplyDeleteI think I know what you mean in the sense that when you apply your “paradigm” to a part of the bible, the answer pops out at you when your paradigm is somewhat consistent. But it works for Reformed theology as well. They have ways of making sense out of all those “trouble spots” as well. Consistent paradigm= easier interpretation. Is this sort of what you mean? But that still leaves the “which paradigm” question. Whether my Lutheran, or Reformed friends or you, you all believe in sola Scriptura, you all have consistent paradigms, and you all think you have the correct interpretation of the scripture. But you ALL have VERY different interpretations from each other.
So consistent results can't be the reason it is a correct paradigm because many paradigms will give consistent results.
As for my constitution analogy, like all analogies it breaks down. The purpose was to show an example where we both agree that a written document needs interpretive authority... thats all. If I thought the Catholic teaching authority was even capable of doctrinal corruption, I would not be Catholic.
“But even though the founding fathers did there best to preserve our foundation as long as possible and people STILL mess it up doesn't mean we should throw out our current system in exchange for a monarchy or an oligarchy, where our own interpretation and opinion doesn't matter because the King (or whatever) has some sort of supreme authority.”
I'm confused. The supreme court DOES have supreme authority, and our opinion and interpretation doesn't matter. I can believe all day that it is illegal to kill babies, but it is legal. Likewise in the Protestant analogy, the various denominations can all believe all day that each of their interpretations are the correct one, but only ONE can be. Changing the rules to allow everyone to interpret God's revelation does not result in freedom, but bondage to error.
“Your standards of authority seem man made to me.”
I know what you mean, because your standard of authority seems REALLY man made to me. The book you say is your ultimate standard does not say it is the ultimate standard, and in fact says it is NOT! And your interpretations from that book don't look anything like the doctrine of the Apostles. So that seems man made to me. But that is why we discuss, so we can put each other in our shoes and seek the truth. If my authority is man made, God help me to see that fact and repent Kendra.
“I don't see a resemblance between the Catholic Church and the Body of Christ described in the Bible.”
I think it fits like a glove. And I don't see your communion looking at all like what I see in scripture. No sacramental confession, no baptism, no devoting to the “breaking of bread” (the Eucharist in the Mass), no anointing with oil, no exorcisms, no miracles, no baptism in the Holy Ghost (confirmation), no communion of saints (as understood by the men who coined the phrase), no purgatory, no redemptive suffering, … oh my the list could go on. But I bet you would rather see evidence of all that than just my assertion, as would I for your assertion.
continued...
“It just seems to me like a person would have to have more faith in the Church Fathers than in Christ to follow the Catholic Church.”
ReplyDeleteDoes it “seem to you” or do you actually think I have more faith in men than in God? If true, I am an idolater, and on my way to hell.
If I wanted to do a drive-by, I could say I think you put Paul above Christ, blatantly dismissing things Christ says as not applying to you, making him into not much more than a prophet and a cosmic rabbits foot to rub for salvation, and that you are substituting the grace of God for a man made religion of dualism and antinomianism.
But I wont say that, because I know that to you your religion is quite close to the heart and mind of Christ. And I respect that desire for truth. Plus I know that saying those things just raises the heat but not the light, and really does not progress the discussion.
-Peace
Hi Kendra,
ReplyDeleteI responded to the link to Matthew McGee's site in a new thread:
http://newchristendom.blogspot.com/2011/06/preliminary-questions-to-two-gospels.html
-David
I feel sorry for catholics; sheep led to the slaughter
ReplyDelete