|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/26/2008 5:02:28 PM
|
|
|
loco79
Posts: 89
Joined: 6/18/2008
Status: offline
|
Turretinfan:
2 Thess 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
We are commanded in the name of Jesus to withdraw from those who do not follow traditions. How much more inspiration do you need, then a command from God himself.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/26/2008 5:53:51 PM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 11442
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
Turretinfan:
2 Thess 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
We are commanded in the name of Jesus to withdraw from those who do not follow traditions. How much more inspiration do you need, then a command from God himself.
How do you equate the tradition which was received from the apostles themselves with those of non-apostles (popes, councils, etc.)?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/26/2008 8:34:12 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5256
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
Turretinfan:
2 Thess 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
We are commanded in the name of Jesus to withdraw from those who do not follow traditions. How much more inspiration do you need, then a command from God himself.
As I notice ta_mosquito has already noted, one issue is how one distinguishes between apostolic traditions and the traditions of popes and councils.
There's another issue as well: why must "the tradition which he received from us" be something other than Scripture?
In point of fact, both issues collapse into one, because the only authentic (or authenticatable) apostolic traditions are those found in Scripture.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/26/2008 11:10:08 PM
|
|
|
loco79
Posts: 89
Joined: 6/18/2008
Status: offline
|
turretinfan and Ta mosquito
2 Thess 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or epistle.
Tradition can be word of mouth or eqistle, and they are clearly passing something, because they ar supposed to hold on to it.
1 Thess 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
The oral word of God also worketh in people.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/26/2008 11:14:25 PM
|
|
|
loco79
Posts: 89
Joined: 6/18/2008
Status: offline
|
Accidently hit the OK button:
On the second verse they passed things down orally, and is given to them as truth, from God.
So from scripture, tradition was passed down from apostles to non-apostles. They are to keep the traditon that they learned. And on the second verse, the word of God was passed down orally as his truth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/27/2008 6:25:12 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5256
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
turretinfan and Ta mosquito
2 Thess 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or epistle.
Tradition can be word of mouth or eqistle, and they are clearly passing something, because they ar supposed to hold on to it.
I find it interesting how we are playing Bible verse hopscotch here, jumping from verse to verse as the verses don't hold up to the burden that is being placed on them. But I'll play along for the moment and look at this one as well.
In context, that's simply referring to the gospel.
2Th 2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
They, like us, preached the gospel. The Thessalonians were supposed to stand fast and hold the traditions which they were taught whether by word or epistle.
Now, let's turn things on there heads: can you demonstrate one thing that Paul taught the Thessalonians by word that we do not find in Scripture? Just one thing.
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
1 Thess 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
The oral word of God also worketh in people.
Oh, it surely does, which is why we preach the gospel, just like Paul. But the whole Gospel is in Scripture. And again, this additional verse you identified is just before the one I just pointed out above:
2Th 2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
In fact, there is nothing in 2 Thessalonians that suggests that the Thessalonians were taught even one doctrine that is not found in Scripture. They were being told to hold fast to the Gospel.
-TurretinFan
< Message edited by turretinfan -- 8/27/2008 6:32:09 PM >
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/27/2008 6:31:03 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5256
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
Accidently hit the OK button:
On the second verse they passed things down orally, and is given to them as truth, from God.
So from scripture, tradition was passed down from apostles to non-apostles. They are to keep the traditon that they learned. And on the second verse, the word of God was passed down orally as his truth.
Undoubtedly it was passed on orally and in written form. The oral passing on of the word of God is called preaching. But Paul was not suggesting some kind of "whisper in the ear" Kabbalistic/Gnostic passing on of secret knowledge about God from bishop to bishop down through the centuries.
In fact, Paul is addressing not the bishop of Thessalonica but the brethren.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/27/2008 9:32:30 PM
|
|
|
loco79
Posts: 89
Joined: 6/18/2008
Status: offline
|
turretinfan:
In 2 Thess 2:15 the key is "or" the say the traditions passed down orally or from epistle.
Or represents the alternative, so paul is saying just because it is not written, doesnt mean you can ignore what you learned orally.
And my goal wasnt to scripture hop, you said that my previous verse didnt address a concern of yours, so I made sure to use some that did.
As far as the Gospel, it is both written and oral.
Also, it is not a whisper in the ear, there are many teachings, such as the eucharist, mary, oral tradition and salvation, which are all passed down from the early church fathers. I dont really feel like pulling up all the names and what they taught, and there is still a lineage of who passed what and whom they learned it from.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/28/2008 12:32:07 PM
|
|
|
loco79
Posts: 89
Joined: 6/18/2008
Status: offline
|
turretinfan:
quote:
Now, let's turn things on there heads: can you demonstrate one thing that Paul taught the Thessalonians by word that we do not find in Scripture? Just one thing.
So if Paul is only talking to the Thessalonians, then in his letter to to Tim (regarding scripture being profitable and so forth), why do say that is meant to have univerisal meaning, and this is only subject to the Thessalonians? Do you have proof that this was only meant for the Thessalonians and not meant to be taken as a universal meaning as well?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 8/28/2008 5:24:31 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5256
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
turretinfan:
In 2 Thess 2:15 the key is "or" the say the traditions passed down orally or from epistle.
Or represents the alternative, so paul is saying just because it is not written, doesnt mean you can ignore what you learned orally.
Just "taught" - not "passed down." But no one is saying that the Thessalonians were permitted to ignore the gospel, regardless of the form in which they were given it. That's a straw man.
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
And my goal wasnt to scripture hop, you said that my previous verse didnt address a concern of yours, so I made sure to use some that did.
I'm not questioning your motives - just noting a pattern.
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
As far as the Gospel, it is both written and oral.
It can be conveyed either way.
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
Also, it is not a whisper in the ear, there are many teachings, such as the eucharist, mary, oral tradition and salvation, which are all passed down from the early church fathers.
The things we have received from the ECF's we have received in their writings, not orally. And the ECF's don't provide us with transcriptions of previously oral communications from Jesus or the apostles. The fact that some teachings that your church now holds are found in some writings of a few of the church fathers is really a minor point.
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
I dont really feel like pulling up all the names and what they taught, and there is still a lineage of who passed what and whom they learned it from.
I've already pointed out that no one from your church can identify/document even one doctrine that Paul taught the Thessalonians that is not in the Bible. I'm not sure if you imagine that there is a list out there that provides such documentation ... but as far as I know, no serious apologist for Catholicism claims to be able to do that.
Which puts us right back to where we started from. Scripture is the one inspired source of information that we have, because we don't have the living Paul the apostle teaching us. Instead, we have his epistles. We don't know of anything that Paul taught that didn't make it into the Bible - even if someone were to mistakenly conclude from 2 Thess 2:15 that Paul taught them things that never made it into the Bible.
In other words, if 2 Thess 2:15 means that Paul taught the Thessalonians certain doctrines that were never put anywhere in Scripture (I don't think we have any reason to think that's what it means, but just consider for the sake of the argument) AND Paul considered those certain additional doctrines to be part of "the Gospel" he references in verse 14 (which is necessary from the context, if we grant the first assumption), THEN we simply cannot identify what those certain doctrines are, and Scripture provides us with only an incomplete Gospel.
But that would seem to be a nearly blasphemous claim - and it is certainly not a claim that was made in the early church by Christians.
Continuing ...
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
turretinfan:
quote:
Now, let's turn things on there heads: can you demonstrate one thing that Paul taught the Thessalonians by word that we do not find in Scripture? Just one thing.
So if Paul is only talking to the Thessalonians,
He is certainly is speaking to the Thessalonians. His words have value to us, but he did not come and preach to us personally. There is also value for us in this:
2Ti 4:13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.
But the value for us is not that we need to go on a cloack hunt in Troas, or try to find Paul's lost books.
Getting back to the verse at hand, the value of the point that we need to hold fast the Gospel that we have been taught is essential and enduring. Paul teaches us only by epistle, because he is now in heaven.
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
then in his letter to to Tim (regarding scripture being profitable and so forth), why do say that is meant to have univerisal meaning, and this is only subject to the Thessalonians?
Well, you have to read the verses in context. As illustrated by 2 Timothy 4:13 above, when we read the letter in its historical context we recognize that Paul is not asking us to go to Troas. Same thing happens when we hear Paul asking the Thessalonians to hold fast what he preached to them. Paul didn't preach to us, so reading the letter contextually, we recognize that we are not being asked to hold fast what Paul preached to us.
In this passage:
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Paul makes a general statement. There is nothing in the context to suggest that it is limited to Timothy, and - in fact - no serious exegetical scholars that I've ever heard of suggest that it is limited to Timothy.
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
Do you have proof that this was only meant for the Thessalonians and not meant to be taken as a universal meaning as well?
a) See above. The passage has to be read in context, to be read properly.
b) If you want to say that the verse has "universal meaning" and that the meaning has something to do with multigenerational "oral tradition," then the onus is on you to prove that from the text, not on me to prove it isn't so.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/4/2008 7:27:43 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 892
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
The things we have received from the ECF's we have received in their writings, not orally. And the ECF's don't provide us with transcriptions of previously oral communications from Jesus or the apostles. The fact that some teachings that your church now holds are found in some writings of a few of the church fathers is really a minor point. Only to one trying to dismiss the entire Deposit of Faith in favor of a piece of it...
In reading the last exchange, it always surprises me that people seem to presume printing presses and vulgar language "Scriptures" before the 16th century. The only way to deal with Scriptures in the 6th century was to have been taught by someone under the authority of Church what the Latin translation meant. If you teach a child that "red" is "green" that child will still stop at the stop signs in the road, even though the signs are "green" in his use of the language. That teaching is authoritative for the child - he can't question it at the time of learning, and that teaching can only be tested against others who have been similarly instructed. In the case of conflict, the "green stop sign" child must either continue on with what he has been taught, or abandon that teaching and assent to a different authority (the one in this case that teaches that stop signs are actually "red" in English) for the definition of the color of stop signs.
This recognition of the flaw of the original teaching authority might cause the child to further test and challenge that authority.
You are dismissing the authority of one who viewed, lived and taught Christianity in the first few centuries of Christianity, in favor of one that attempted to "extra-polate" the Deposit of Faith 16 centuries removed from the action of the Deposit, from texts representing part of that Deposit. Furthermore, you have since diverged from the instruction of that extrapolation to a more personal view, because Calvin didn't have to deal with stem cell research and cloning.
I don't find much authority in the personal view of a single Christian reading an English Bible. I find an awful lot of authority in a 2,000 year old institution specifically created and charged with the mission of defense and teaching of faith for the faithful.
And if I have to choose which one is correctly identifying the color of the stop signs, I am picking the older and wiser of the two options outlined in the last paragraph.
_____________________________
When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity...it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, he does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life" - Ez 18:25-28
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/4/2008 10:38:41 AM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5256
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
The things we have received from the ECF's we have received in their writings, not orally. And the ECF's don't provide us with transcriptions of previously oral communications from Jesus or the apostles. The fact that some teachings that your church now holds are found in some writings of a few of the church fathers is really a minor point. Only to one trying to dismiss the entire Deposit of Faith in favor of a piece of it...
That sounds ad hominem to me, but perhaps that's not how you meant it. Please explain how the fact that some teachings that your church now holds are found in some writings of a few of the church fathers is anything more than a minor point to someone other than the person you describe.
And, of course, your comment itself begs the question. The question is whether your church actually has this mythical "Deposit of Faith." Obviously, if it does not, then someone opposing your church is not trying to dismiss the "entire Deposit of Faith in favor of a piece of it."
What's more, the fact that your church's doctrines today are not the uniform teachings of the extant early church fathers is a significant historical problem for your church. In short, it is not only reasonably doubted that a "Deposit of Faith" beyond Scripture was given to the churches, but it is reasonably held that the Scriptures are the entire rule of faith that has been handed down to us from the Apostles.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
In reading the last exchange, it always surprises me that people seem to presume printing presses and vulgar language "Scriptures" before the 16th century.
Printing presses were a technology novelty.
Scriptures in the common tongue have been around since Moses' time.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
The only way to deal with Scriptures in the 6th century was to have been taught by someone under the authority of Church what the Latin translation meant.
By the 6th century, the Scriptures had been translated into many languages that we know of.
Armenian,
Coptic (both Sahidic and Boharic dialects),
Ethiopic (Abyssinian),
Frankish (hard to be precisely sure about the dates from the limited manuscript remains),
Georgian,
Gothic,
Greek (The OT was already in Greek before Jesus time ... and the NT was written in Greek),
Latin (which you already mentioned), and
Syriac.
So, no, your claim is not true.
Furthermore, there are many language groups for which we simply don't have conclusive evidence. For example, ancient Gaelic versions are found as early as the seventh century ... but it is hard to know how much earlier the Scripture began to be translated into Gaelic. So, while we have plentiful evidence of the widespread translation of the Bible into the common tongues of men by the 6th century, there may be even more versions that had been made, of which we simply lack existing copies today.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
If you teach a child that "red" is "green" that child will still stop at the stop signs in the road, even though the signs are "green" in his use of the language. That teaching is authoritative for the child - he can't question it at the time of learning, and that teaching can only be tested against others who have been similarly instructed. In the case of conflict, the "green stop sign" child must either continue on with what he has been taught, or abandon that teaching and assent to a different authority (the one in this case that teaches that stop signs are actually "red" in English) for the definition of the color of stop signs.
I'm not sure how this analogy applies ... It seems to me to be mostly irrelevant to the issues presented ...
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
This recognition of the flaw of the original teaching authority might cause the child to further test and challenge that authority.
That makes sense, I think. But again, it doesn't seem particularly relevant to the discussion.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
You are dismissing the authority of one who viewed, lived and taught Christianity in the first few centuries of Christianity, in favor of one that attempted to "extra-polate" the Deposit of Faith 16 centuries removed from the action of the Deposit, from texts representing part of that Deposit.
That's not true.
Instead, I am dismissing the authority of modern Catholicism (20 centuries removed from the apostles) in favor of the authority of Scripture itself. Modern Catholicism is not the same in terms of its views, way of life, or teachings as either Tridentine Catholicism or pre-Tridentine Western Christianity, and we could go on and on.
The Scripture itself is the pure tradition of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, uncorrupted by human innovations. Even from a purely historical perspective, it is the only things we can definitively say were held and taught by the apostles.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
Furthermore, you have since diverged from the instruction of that extrapolation to a more personal view, because Calvin didn't have to deal with stem cell research and cloning.
Calvin is not the issue. I don't believe anything on Calvin's authority. Calvin is not to me as your church is to you, instead Scriptures are to me what your church is to you. I happen to agree with a lot of what Calvin said, but that's simply because he was a gifted student of the Bible who was immersed in Scripture. He preached from Scripture almost every day - and his Biblical commentaries are enormous. But there is a one-stop thread for Calvinism ... if you want to discuss Calvinism, I suggest you take the discussion there. As I said at the start of this paragraph, Calvin is not the issue.
What's more - no mysterious "deposit of faith" handed down from the apostles is going to deal with stem cell research and cloning, beyond how those issues are addressed in Scripture. If the 16th century did not know of those technologies, neither did the 1st century. It should be obvious, therefore, that the apostles did not secretly hand down information on these future technologies that was concealed from the rest of the world until the technologies arrived.
In fact, I cannot think of any notable proponent of Catholicism that would claim the apostles handed on such secret teaching in a "deposit of faith." So, actually, the issue of modern technologies (like stem cell research and cloning) are not really helpful to your position.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
I don't find much authority in the personal view of a single Christian reading an English Bible. I find an awful lot of authority in a 2,000 year old institution specifically created and charged with the mission of defense and teaching of faith for the faithful.
Even if I were to grant the assumption that modern Catholicism is a "2,000 year old institution" (which it is not), its authority pales in comparison to the authority of Scripture itself. There is a reason: Scripture is the inspired Word of God. The teachings of modern Catholicism are not on that same level.
It also important to reiterate that the comparison is not properly between modern Catholicism and the views of Pastor Calvin or Pastor Wesley or those of any other pastor or teacher, but between modern Catholicism and the Scripture itself.
We do have churches, and we do agree that the church has a measure of authority and responsibility for defense and teaching of the faith. Its authority, however, is subservient to that of God. Thus, when any church goes beyond or contradicts Scripture, it has exceeded its authority.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
And if I have to choose which one is correctly identifying the color of the stop signs, I am picking the older and wiser of the two options outlined in the last paragraph.
Again ... this kind of claim is built on a foundation of false assumptions, some of which are already identified above. It's also built on the false and mistaken comparison between your dogmatic authority (your church - with those faulty historical assumptions) and our persuasive authority (Christian teachers) instead of being a proper comparison between your dogmatic authority (the current teachings of Catholicism) and our dogmatic authority (Scriptures themselves).
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/5/2008 3:05:51 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 892
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
That sounds ad hominem to me, but perhaps that's not how you meant it. Please explain how the fact that some teachings that your Church now holds are found in some writings of a few of the Church fathers is anything more than a minor point to someone other than the person you describe. Because I believe that it establishes a relativism of the practice of faith that says that some things are really important, and something things we may dismiss, or consider to be "minor points".
I don't believe this. Neither does my Church. There is an ideal that is the reality of the Deposit of Faith and how we are asked to participate in relationship with God through Jesus, strengthened by the Holy Spirit. Every jot and tittle of the Deposit IS important.
As far as ad hominem, the remark was meant to convey the fact that within Christendom, there are segments that allow the dismissal or trivialization of some aspects of the practice of and participation in faith. I view this differently - where we fall short (by choice or by omission) in our practice has a bearing on the quality of our relationship and its fullness. We cannot achieve a full relationship by relegating aspects of faith to minor points, in my opinion.
quote:
And, of course, your comment itself begs the question. The question is whether your Church actually has this mythical "Deposit of Faith." This of itself is a matter of personal consideration. As we have no living eye-witness to Jesus and the early Church, we cannot "prove" the content of the Deposit of Faith in its entirety, but we may draw a conclusion as to the robustness of the mechanism by which the Deposit is preserved and conveyed through the ages. We note that what seem to be the important bits of it were written down, but just as you cannot define the word "lean" for me without seeing me use that word in a sentence to gain insight into the context of my particular use of that word, we have to rely on the the passage of the meanings of those words and their proper rendering, from the instruction about those words that has been passed down before us. It is in the robustness and accuracy of this mechanism and its ability to guard and preserve in which we find authority.
You say have made several comments about "Scriptural Authority". What gives Scripture its authority is the belief of the believer that this indeed IS the word of God. The words of Scirpuitre bear witness and an account of the definition of and the calling to participation in the relationship in which God has asked us to participate. There is a matter then of interpretation and application, and my hypothesis is that within this interpretation, and the conversion of the words of Scriptural instruction to an understanding of how it applies to cloning, for example - is an action of the exercise of authority. In my case, I assent to the authority for that interpretation that has existed along with Christianity and has preserved and defended it. You side with the authority of a personal rendering of those same Scriptures, in disagreement with my rendering.
My exercise of my personal authority is to realize that have neither the gifts, nor the tools, nor the preparation to properly develop a personal rendering of Scriptures, and I assent to that authority which I believe has all of those qualities. You apparently believe that you are suitably equipped, gifted and have the tools to accomplish this for yourself. If we are both Spirit led in our endeavors, then the Spirit is telling me that I am lot more stupid than the Spirit is telling you that you are.
I would also charge that your way (personal interpretation) smacks of an acceptance of relativism of faith. The depth and breadth of participation for each of us is limited to our one ability to cope with Scriptures, whether that be learning Koine Greek, Shakespearean Middle English or rolling the dice with one of the "modern" translations. As our abilities are God-given and Spirit-led, its okay to have an errant understanding of faith, because that is what God has given us, and that is where the Spirit has led us.
I contrast that to the view that God gave us Jesus and Jesus gave us Church, whose role and point of existence is for God to reveal faith to the faithful. Everyone has an equal shot at the ideal of faith, and the depth and breadth to which people actually participate and realize the relationship offered by God is dependent on personal discipline, strength, character, will and alignment of that will with the will of God. The relativism that may exist is due to the variability of people's willingness to participate in the entire Deposit which has been made available, and not limited by some personal specialized abilities to actually define that ideal for themselves.
quote:
What's more, the fact that your Church's doctrines today are not the uniform teachings of the extant early Church fathers is a significant historical problem for your Church. In short, it is not only reasonably doubted that a "Deposit of Faith" beyond Scripture was given to the churches, but it is reasonably held that the Scriptures are the entire rule of faith that has been handed down to us from the Apostles. I suppose the opinion of the first sentence is a matter of opinion. The Deposit of Faith is conveyed in the authority of the magisterium. It is not hard to imagine me telling my child a story about my father, and having my child pass that story to their child. One has to guard against embellishment or exaggeration, which I believe has been done by the Church. By this simple means of conveyance, if there is persistence, the story of my father passed to my child might very well survive 2,000 years - especially if it had the relevance of the message that is found in the magisterium.
I contrast that to an extrapolation or reinvention of the deposit removed from the magisterium. If the position of "correct" is occupied, the only ground to squabble about is various shades of "error". This is a genuine problem for some, I believe. The only course of discussion is to insist that "correct" has shifted and moved and made its way to "error". That becomes a matter of opinion, not proof. And that takes the discussion back to "Spirit led".
quote:
Scriptures in the common tongue have been around since Moses' time. Conveyed by people specifically trained by those before them for that task. It is in that preparation and ordination that the authority of these oral Scriptures lie. If someone tells me a story that is almost too good to be true, the first thing I ask is where they heard it from...
That is an appeal to authority. Is the story teller for real, or just blowing smoke at me?
quote:
Instead, I am dismissing the authority of modern Catholicism (20 centuries removed from the apostles) in favor of the authority of Scripture itself. Your understanding of it or mine? Should I just abandon the Roman Catholic Church's interpretation and follow you? Okay...sure. Who in the world are you...?
That appeal to authority is what I believe is missing from the Churches outside the ancient communions. We don't follow the pastor, because he might be wrong (we have to check him against Scripture...our personal standard and interpretation of it), therefore, the Church has no meaning or relevance of authority within the Protestant Church, other than being where we go gather, read a little Scripture, pray together a little, and have coffee and donuts afterwards. It is not a place where we participate in the Church universal in a common order of worship, hearing together the same liturgical readings and hearing the relevance and application of those readings to our modern lives from the authority established to indeed instruct us in these matters. We do not uniformly participate in a common Sacrament of sharing the single everlasting sacrifice of Christ Jesus for our salvation. At least...that's how I see it.
quote:
Calvin is not the issue. He was easy to pick on in the moment in order to make a point. Given my feelings towards Calvin's works, you won't be seeing me anytime soon in the Calvin thread...I concede, he is not the issue, except that he does seem to be a genuine authority for shaping the interpretations of Scripture for some in Christendom, given the numbers who seem to subscribe to his version of Scriptural interpretation.
quote:
Scripture is the inspired Word of God. The teachings of modern Catholicism are not on that same level. They are if they agree with the Deposit of Faith, or in your case - Scriptures.
quote:
Thus, when any church goes beyond or contradicts Scripture, it has exceeded its authority. Within this frame of reference, the authority is an individual decision as to how to accept the instruction of faith, and what I think we are discussing is the position of having a go at Scriptures all by one's self, versus assenting to an authoritative instruction that has been made accessible to us by an institution prepared and gifted for that task.
quote:
Again ... this kind of claim is built on a foundation of false assumptions, some of which are already identified above. It's also built on the false and mistaken comparison between your dogmatic authority (your church - with those faulty historical assumptions) and our persuasive authority (Christian teachers) instead of being a proper comparison between your dogmatic authority (the current teachings of Catholicism) and our dogmatic authority (Scriptures themselves). My signature adequately describes the relationship that I believe exists between Dogma, Scripture and the Church. Scripture is authoritative because a Church or body of believers says so...Catholic or Protestant. The KJV has 66 Books because somewhere at some time some Church decreed it to be so, and to be valid for the development and practice of faith, unless you have that authorization coming from King James himself.
_____________________________
When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity...it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, he does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life" - Ez 18:25-28
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/5/2008 4:06:55 PM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 142
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
Doghouse:
You are one "tough nut to crack". I have read your post in it's entirety today and you make valid and evidently well thought out points. Although I do not agree with your position on 98% of it, it does make interesting reading.
What about my recent PM to you? Answered it yet? I am waiting.
One small point I must make. The Scriptures are the written Word of God. Their authority comes from HIM. At no time in the past were they not HIS WORD. When one argues with them, he / she is arguing with God himself.
Man may have his interpretations. The Church may have theirs. NONE OF THIS MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE. The Bible is still and always will be, the everlasting Word of the living God. It's authority comes directly from the author himself and is proven by prophecy made, fulfilled, and recorded within its pages. A claim no other book can make.
As I have said in my posts before - "God said it, that settles it, no discussion required." Our part is to simply believe ( give assent) to what the Bible says. Nothing more. Nothing less.
2Preacher
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/7/2008 7:45:23 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 892
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
Although I do not agree with your position on 98% of it, it does make interesting reading. I suppose if you agreed with more of what I said, I'd see you at Mass on Sundays...
I don't mind disagreement and constructive dialog.
quote:
What about my recent PM to you? Answered it yet? I am waiting. I had a client cancel an appointment Friday, so I had 2 1/2 hours free to do some posting - what you see above is one of them. I didn't get the "You have a PM" notice on your PM's, so I am just now seeing your 4 PM's from the 27th and the 29th. I'll try to get to them during this week.
quote:
The Scriptures are the written Word of God. Their authority comes from HIM. Amen to this, but we both accept that the Gospel of Thomas is not Scripture, and that it is not the authoritative word of God. So somewhere, God appears to have a deputy or a vicar running around...this 2nd shelf authority is the one I am speaking of when referring to Church authority.
If the only writings that were ever found or that ever existed were all "of God", then you might have a point. But someone sifted through the whole pile of all the documents that are there and dictated 27 of them to be the inspired Word of God. Accepting this dictation is assenting the the authority represented by the one doing the choosing and dictating, whether you believe that to be ecclesiastical council, the Roman Catholic Church, Erasmus or King James...
I find that most people outside the ancient communions deny this authority exists, but have difficulty answering why the Christian Bookstore doesn't have have all 114 or whatever books claiming to be inspired Scripture sitting on the shelf, and allowing shoppers to compile their own New Testament from among them. Obviously, some high-standing or authoritative Protestant somewhere said that the Protestant NT shall have 27 Books and the OT shall have (...6 minus 7, carry the 1...) 39 Books, and the NT Books shall be Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts and the various Epistles etc...(hey, the same ones I use...)
And most Protestants have followed this authority ever since.
A Catholic accepts that this authority is "Church", and that the Church is led from error by the Holy Spirit.
A Protestant usually has not thought about this, and when confronted, will change the subject (at least on this website). Actually, to be fair, many Protestants practice under faiths that do provide enough central guidance to state the the KJV is the "real" Bible. Where did these faiths get this central guidance? And why isn't this council convened to authoritatively define instruction (i. e. compile a Catechism or a Confession...)?
Again, noting that some do meet annually and do define some level of instruction (my mind drifts back to the Episcopals meeting in New Orleans last year...to tackle openly gay clergy and the schism from the Anglicans, among other sticky wickets...)
_____________________________
When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity...it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, he does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life" - Ez 18:25-28
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/8/2008 1:03:29 AM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 142
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
this 2nd shelf authority is the one I am speaking of when referring to Church authority.
quote:
But someone sifted through the whole pile of all the documents that are there and dictated 27 of them to be the inspired Word of God. Accepting this dictation is assenting the the authority represented by the one doing the choosing and dictating, whether you believe that to be ecclesiastical council, the Roman Catholic Church, Erasmus or King James... most people outside the ancient communions deny this authority exists
quote:
A Catholic accepts that this authority is "Church", and that the Church is led(kept???) from error by the Holy Spirit.
Doghouse:
I agree. In fact, as far as I am concerned, if it weren't for the "Church" with its Monks, Scribes, and copyists- working through the centuries, we would not have the Scriptures in their present form. Some of my contemporaries may disagree, but we owe a huge debt to those who spent their lifetimes copying the Scriptures and distributing them within the first few centuries of Christianity and yes, they were Catholic.
These are issues of TRANSMISSION AND PRESERVATION.
I am a PRESERVATIONIST and as such, believe that God through the above processes of transmission and preservation has kept his Word pure and free from error. In the case of the OT he did that by granting singular responsibility for these tasks to the Jewish people. In the case of the NT he gave the responsibility to the early church.
When it comes to CANNONIZATION of Scripture, we are speaking, not of transmission and preservation, but RECOGNITION of AUTHORITY as the True Word of God. This is a process of elimination based on certain criteria as to which of the writings truly belong in the Cannon of Scripture.
(see my post #377 for a list of the criteria).
As to the OT, with the exception of the Apocryphal Books, there is very little question as to which books belong. The writings of the Hebrew Scriptures have always (with rare exception) been accepted as belonging by the people of God.
The books of the NT are backed by and even greater number of extant copies than the OT. There are over 5000 manuscript copies and fragments of the twenty seven books of the NT. These manuscripts agree on all major points of doctrine and what variations do exist, due to copyist error, do not affect any major point of doctrine.
God used the church councils to aid in the preservation of His Word. He guided them as to which books to include and which to reject. Men such as ERASMUS, the KJV Translators, etc. were used to translate and compile the books. The books of the Apocrypha were rejected from protestant Bibles based on the SAME criteria that the 39 OT and 27NT were accepted on.
(I should have some info on this around in my library. I will look for it and cite it for you later).
quote:
many Protestants practice under faiths that do provide enough central guidance to state the the KJV is the "real" Bible. Where did these faiths get this central guidance? And why isn't this council convened to authoritatively define instruction (i. e. compile a Catechism or a Confession...)?
As to "where did these faiths get this central guidance?" I believe that the answer would be God himself through the Holy Spirit. Again, Doghouse, you must remember that I do not consider my Baptist faith to be "protestant" but Biblical. ( not in the sense that Baptist is in the Scriptures, but that our doctrine agrees most closely with the Bible IMHO)
I know that last line sounds a bit exclusive, but it does describe my personal belief. When Baptist doctrine fails to be Biblical doctrine, I will cease to be Baptist.
As to " why isn't this council convened to authoritatively define instruction (i. e. compile a Catechism or a Confession...)?" I am not quite sure. Most protestant faiths agree on the FUNDAMENTALS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. Some churches do have written confessions and creeds which were written on the authority of their individual denomination.
Baptist are an odd lot. They are not as rigid as some other groups. Generally they adhere to the New Hampshire Confession as a broad statement of faith. Most groups will trace their doctrinal statements directly to the Scriptures as well. Where the two (the confession and the Scriptures) differ, the Scriptures are generally given preference. As an individual, I base my belief squarely on the Scriptures as the authoritative word of God.
The instruction of faith for Baptists begins in early childhood and continues through adulthood. It is done through a variety of means including worship services (Sunday (2) and Wednesday), Sunday Bible study for all ages, and through discipleship programs in each local church.
Admittedly, there is much to be desired sometimes in these methods because of human involvement. Humans not being perfect. Some instructors are well educated and others are less educated. It is for this reason that a UNIFORM set of literature is used to instruct and disciple which is based on the Scriptures.
2Preacher
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/8/2008 11:17:54 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3178
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
and yes, they were Catholic. I would say they were catholic (little "c") referring to the universal church as stated in the Apostles' Creed. There was essentially only one universal early church during the "first few centuries of Christianity" until sociopolitical changes in the 300-400s led to the distinct separation between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. I realize this is a bit over-simplified but definitely more accurate than your assertion.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/8/2008 11:33:12 AM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 142
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
Drmark:
My friend thank you for your correction. I too meant 'catholic' in the sense of universal rather than "Catholic" as in the RCC. There is a distinct difference between the church of the NT (catholic) and the RCC of today.
I appreciate your attention to detail. Everyone makes mistakes. I have made many and I appreciate it when someone more knowledgeable than I corrects them. Thanks again.
2Preacher
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/8/2008 11:59:39 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3178
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I have made many and I appreciate it when someone more knowledgeable than I corrects them. I don't know, 2preacher, you seem pretty knowledgeable to me! That may be another mistake. 
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/8/2008 1:23:10 PM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 142
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
Drmark:
quote:
I have made many and I appreciate it when someone more knowledgeable than I corrects them. (mine)
"I don't know, 2preacher, you seem pretty knowledgeable to me! That may be another mistake." (yours)
I hope I am not taking your comment the wrong way. I am just an ordinary guy whom God has granted a relatively good mind to and allowed me the opportunity to gain a good education. It is all because of Him. I am no one special and I am continuously learning. That's why I like corresponding in these forums. They are a good place to sharpen ones skills. "Iron sharpeneth Iron".
I appreciate your comment. Some times people have "too much knowledge" . To put it another way, as Jerry Clower says, they are "educated beyond their intelligence". I sincerely hope that I am not one of those folks.
I only desire to know Christ and my faith better so that I can serve him better.
2Preacher
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Catholic Vs. Protestant Bible - 9/8/2008 2:12:05 PM
|
|
|
| |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
