Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

49 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

AlyoshaKaramazov
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 49

Posted 1/8/2003 7:22 PM (GMT -6)

Hello Christus Victor discussion board!

Your discussion board is the most intelligent and sophisticated board I've seen on the web. I thank everyone for their challenging posts.

I have recently been reading materials on Catholicism, and I have been challenged by some arguments Catholic writers have put forth to show how tradition is on par with scripture as spiritually authoritative.

For instance Peter Kreeft in his "Catholic Christianity" offers six considerations that point to rejecting sola scriptura:

a.) No Christian before Luther ever taught it, for the first sixteen Christian centuries.
b.) The first generation of Christians did not even have the New Testament.
c.) Without the Catholic Church to interpret Scripture authoritatively, Protestantism has divided into more than twenty thousand different churches or denominations.
d.) If Scripture is infallible, the Church must be infallible too, for a fallible cause cannot produce an infallible effect, and the Church produced the Bible. The Church (apostles and saints) wrote the NT, and the Church (subsequent bishops) defined its canon.
e.) Scripture itself calls the Church "the pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15)
f.) And Scripture itself never teaches sola scriptura. Thus sola scriptura is self-contradictory. If we are to believe only scripture, we should not believe sola scriptura.

In "Crossing the Tiber," Stephen K. Ray argues that when reading the Bible we are utterly dependent on the Church because:
1. The language barrier (hebrew, greek). The Church translated the Bible for Christians to hear and read.
2. The Church sifted through hundreds of documents and determined which documents were inspired, which were not, and officially and authoritatively stamped them as so.
3. The Bible has been preserved throughout history by Catholic monks.
4. The Church read people the Bible during Mass before people were literate.
5. Before the printing press Bibles were extraordinarily expensive, and so the Church read the Bible to Christians.

Furthermore, protestants are dependent upon the Church's canon determinations which were made in the fourth century at the Council of Hippo and the Third Council of Carthage. What is to stop a protestant from cutting up the Bible a la Marcion? Luther suspected a lack of inspiration in James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation. He referred to James as "an epistle of straw."

Prior to the Fourth century, was the foundational and operative principle for Christians sola scriptura? No, Ray says, it was the apostolic tradition, preserved through the apostolic succession within the Catholic Church.

I am an evangelical, but I think that Kreeft and Ray make challenging points that should be responded to.

What say the Christus Victor discussion board?

"Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."--Paul Simon

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 1/9/2003 5:35 AM (GMT -6)

Hello there, AlyoshaKaramazov,
And welcome!
Nice to have you hear.

Well, I am not a church historian, but I'll toss in my two ents.

a.) No Christian before Luther ever taught it, for the first sixteen Christian centuries.
b.) The first generation of Christians did not even have the New Testament.

First, we should be able to accurately define what Luther meant by Sola Scriptura; he was addressing the Catholic church equating itself with (and often times above) the authoritative Word of God. But I'm not sure--others can chime in to answer this--if he was saying that direct revelation from God through a prophet (as long as it was not doctrinally outside of God's Word) was unacceptable.

c.) Without the Catholic Church to interpret Scripture authoritatively, Protestantism has divided into more than twenty thousand different churches or denominations.

It is assume, not proved, that there are many denominations because of Protestantism being without the Catholic church. Besides, the statement doesn't prove that demonitations are a bad development. Further, the Catholic Church (inspite of it's claim that Peter was the first Pope) didn't come along for a few hundred years after Jesus. So, were those many disciples (while awaiting the "Church") without the ability to read, interpret, and understand Paul's letters, the Letter to the Hebrews, the Gospels? Hardly!

d.) If Scripture is infallible, the Church must be infallible too, for a fallible cause cannot produce an infallible effect, and the Church produced the Bible. The Church (apostles and saints) wrote the NT, and the Church (subsequent bishops) defined its canon.
e.) Scripture itself calls the Church "the pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15)

Hmm. God established the church, a fallible one at that. Therefore, God is infallable? I don't think so! God established the church with fallable people. It was already a lost cause (if we're trying to find infallability) going out the gate that the church would not be perfect.

f.) And Scripture itself never teaches sola scriptura. Thus sola scriptura is self-contradictory. If we are to believe only scripture, we should not believe sola scriptura.

As noted in II Timothy 3:15-16, "and how from infancy you have known the holy writings, that are able to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work" (NET).

Footnotes taken from the notes on the translation:
There is very little difference in sense between every scripture (emphasizing the individual portions) and “all scripture” (emphasizing the composite whole). The former option is preferred, because it fits the normal use of the word “all/every” in Greek (pa'", pas) as well as Paul’s normal sense for the word “scripture” in the singular without the article, as here. So every scripture means “every individual portion of scripture.”

"Inspired by God": Some have connected this adjective in a different way and translated it as “every inspired scripture is also useful.” But this violates the parallelism of the two adjectives in the sentence, and the arrangement of words makes clear that both should be taken as predicate adjectives: “every scripture is inspired…and useful.”

End footnote.

Sure, you may not find the explicit statement "Only Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, but over and over God has been pretty clear that it is He and His Word alone which suffice. By the way, where in Scripture does it say that it is only the Catholic Church which must read the Scriptures to us? It's not even hinted! And if Peter's the first Pope, God sure wasn't very clear about how things were supposed to be run; Scripture doesn't address anything remotely close to "it's the Catholic Church we must listen to."

In "Crossing the Tiber," Stephen K. Ray argues that when reading the Bible we are utterly dependent on the Church because:
1. The language barrier (hebrew, greek). The Church translated the Bible for Christians to hear and read.
2. The Church sifted through hundreds of documents and determined which documents were inspired, which were not, and officially and authoritatively stamped them as so.
3. The Bible has been preserved throughout history by Catholic monks.
4. The Church read people the Bible during Mass before people were literate.
5. Before the printing press Bibles were extraordinarily expensive, and so the Church read the Bible to Christians.

1. If you can't read Greek or Hebrew, learn it from someone who can.
2. If you can't read the Greek or Hebrew Bibles, learn to do so.
3. The Bible's been preserved by way of its manuscripts and versions, not monks. The Catholic church could cease to exist today and we'd be no worse off verifying the Bible's contents.
4. One's grandmother could read the Bible to you, not just the church.
5. Wonderful. Glad they're not expensive anymore.

Luther suspected a lack of inspiration in James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation. He referred to James as "an epistle of straw."

Well, there's that fallability thing we were talking about! But to include Bel and the Dragon in the Catholic Bible isn't much better!

Prior to the Fourth century, was the foundational and operative principle for Christians sola scriptura? No, Ray says, it was the apostolic tradition, preserved through the apostolic succession within the Catholic Church.

No, it was apostolic tradition; they received the Word from Jesus, who received it from the Father (John 17), not the Catholic Church. This preserved the integrity of the Gospel message. The manuscript evidence is yet another confirmation. That the Catholic Church came around and bullied the hek out of believers is not an authoritative reason for us to follow it.

Hope this clarifies some,

Starkman

Edited by - Starkman on 01/09/2003 10:36:41 AM

rsirkel
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183

Posted 1/9/2003 9:46 AM (GMT -6)

Hello AlyoshaKaramazov,
I also find this board a good read most of the time. The internet is a wonderful level playing field for discussion. Your presentation was thoughtful and well presented, unlike my usual unrefined posts. But I felt moved to reply to what you said. You probably think I will take the Protestant side but I'm neither in the Catholic nor Protestant camp essentially when it comes to first principle for authority. I would say not the church nor the scriptures but the Spirit is first or essencially necessary for life, guidance, and rightly dividing the scriptures. I love the church of Jesus Christ and the Holy Scriptures, reading churchmens writings and studying daily. But the very scriptures that are the rule of faith and practice for most protestants, those very scriptures, point me to the life in the Spirit. The Spirit is life, love, light, and is the author of the scriptures. And holy men of old spoke as they were moved by the Spirit. So is the church today pushing a form or inspired by the Spirit. He is present and His anointing is trustworthy to abide in. I History reveals that if one is not moved by the Spirit of Christ, he could kill in the name of a church, a doctrine, or against anothers belief of conscience. I would say by their fruits ye shall know them, not by their church. By their fruits, a good tree brings forth good fruit. We serve God not in the oldness of the letter but in newness of Spirit. The Spirit guides us into all truth. He may use people, churches (outward gatherings of people, gathered around a particular interpretation of scripture), or writings, but every individual should be acting from the life giving Spirit and if not their fruits will tell the story. Paul said he is a Jew which is one inwardly; of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter. I use to be involve in prison ministry in Asuncion, Paraguay, in Tacumbu the national prison. I would go in and pass through inspection the same night a Catholic priest would go in. We sat next to each other and talked while we waited to go in. He would go in to the left to the Catholic church gathering and I would go right to the Evangelical gathering. I felt we were brothers because we walked in the same spirit. I'm looking for the day we all get converted to the Spirit of Christ first and know that what we have in our heads from the letter or tradition is just in part. Is the church first, scripture first, or the Spirit first? What is the witness in the heart and what is the testimony of scripture? Who hath bewitched us?

Ron Sirkel

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 1/9/2003 10:52 AM (GMT -6)

I would also add that the Catholic (and Orthodox) churches are not so "united" as they would have Protestants believe. There is a variety of opinions on many subjects throughout both and they certainly do not speak with the "one" voice they want people to think they do.
I would suggest reading Geisler's book on Catholicism, which would be very helpful.

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 1/9/2003 10:55 AM (GMT -6)

Ron: I know many new agers, buddists, etc., who would repeat the very same thing you just did. Without something standard of authority by which to show the truth of your beliefs, yours should be taken of par with anything else that comes this way...
Plus, I know just as many that would say the "Spirit" is confirming things much different that what you just said. If the Bible is the inspired word of God, it should be revered for what it is because God gave it to us...

Edited by - honorman on 01/09/2003 3:57:31 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/9/2003 4:48 PM (GMT -6)

honorman said: I would also add that the Catholic (and Orthodox) churches are not so "united" as they would have Protestants believe. There is a variety of opinions on many subjects throughout both and they certainly do not speak with the "one" voice they want people to think they do.

STT: That certainly is obvious: that there are "a variety of opinions on many subjects throughout." Yet there is also unity of faith, unflinchingly, in the "symbol of faith" the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed" (325 to 381; between 1009 and 1014 the Roman Church added two words "and the Son" -- but the original Creed without the "Filoque" can be seen carved and guilt in the Basilica of St. Peter's in Rome.)

Three things that should not be considered totally "united" are: the style of the liturgy (The core comes directly from the synagog and temple; but it has been shaped by many and various forces and customs, making it unity as practiced truly interesting.); the details and even framework of theology (Again its unity is truly interesting; but the variety of persuasions that had to be dealt with painted a broad landscape -- which again makes the constancies very interesting.); and the insistance that is rhetorically planted in history that only in the visible church is salvation can be seen as just an interesting historical note. (More on that in the book I'll mention below.)

I WISH TO RECOMMEND A BOOK: "Reclaiming the Great Tradition." by IVP. Contributors include Bishop Kallistos Ware, Peter Kreeft, J. I. Packer, Richard John Neuhaus, Harold O. J. Brown, and Carl Braaten.

My recommendation is that a book which lets you hear several voices responding to the same topic from their own points of view, and then also makes you privy to third views commenting on the presentations, well, it really helps one both get a grasp and to begin to find one's own feet.

Review or promotion for this book says:

There is a really good chapter in "Reclaiming the Great Tradition" that touches on an Orthodox view of how to define those in the Church. But I'll make you go get the book (IVP) to find out!

"Reclaiming the Great Tradition", by James S. Cutsinger, IVP

Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 01/09/2003 9:54:45 PM

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 1/9/2003 4:57 PM (GMT -6)

Al: I've read the book. It was good, but, to be honest, having dialogued with many in the Orthodox faith, I would still strongly disgaree with you. I have found in my discussions and research that it isn't simply "variety of opinion," but fundamental differences. Besides a person can simply say that about Protestant sects, that they simply differ in "opinion" not in substance, which is certainly true of most things, when you get past the exterior. So, either way, the argument falls apart.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/9/2003 5:27 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Al: I've read the book. It was good, but, to be honest, having dialogued with many in the Orthodox faith, I would still strongly disgaree with you. I have found in my discussions and research that it isn't simply "variety of opinion," but fundamental differences. Besides a person can simply say that about Protestant sects, that they simply differ in "opinion" not in substance, which is certainly true of most things, when you get past the exterior. So, either way, the argument falls apart.

Again, we agree. I won't say that its just a "variety of opinion" either. But I'd observe as my sisterinlaw does, that Orthodoxy, more than any other form of Christianity evidences the fullness of the Christian faith.

THERE we perhaps disagree. And if it is more comfortable for you to disagree with me than not, then here we can agree that we disagree.

BTW -- YOU SAID BOTH: "I have found in my discussions and research that it isn't simply 'variety of opinion,' but fundamental differences." AND "There is a variety of opinions on many subjects throughout both and they certainly do not speak with the "one" voice they want people to think they do." (You even enjoy disagreeing with yourself?

)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/9/2003 5:54 PM (GMT -6)

I hope that AlyoshaKaramazov will check out the book.

I'm a believer in reading several long articles before feeling that I have begun to clear land for seed-planting. Here are two I just foung with Google:

An Open Letter on Tradition, by James S. Cutsinger, © 2001, Published in Modern Age, 36:3 (1994)www.cutsinger.net/pdf/letter.pdf

"Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church," by Rick Wade www.probe.org/support/copyrght.html

AlyoshaKaramazov
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 49

Posted 1/9/2003 5:59 PM (GMT -6)

I thank everyone for their replies to my original post.

Starkman

quote:

Could you please further explain this comment. I didn't understand it.

quote:

How do you define the Catholic Church? And yes, the earliest Christians were without the ability to read, understand and interpret the scriptures. Not more than ten percent of the Roman Empire was even literate at the time. So yes, the earliest Christians were totally dependent upon the Church to teach them the scriptures.

quote:

You are misconstruing Kreeft's logic here. Kreeft is saying that a fallible cause cannot engender an infallible effect, your example is the other way around. The bottom line is that the scriptures are infallible because they come from Christ--this is the same reason that the Church is infallible in its official teachings (found in the Catechism) (Cf. Jn. 16:13).

quote:

The big problem here is what Paul is intending "scripture" to refer to. I don't see how the footnote helps.

quote:

Okay, major problem of practicality with your (1) and (2). Not many people have the time or even mental capacity to learn Hebrew and Greek, not to mention the ability to read it in any kind of a fluent, helpful way.
Yes the Bible, which consists of manuscripts and versions, was preserved by Catholic monks! The manuscripts and versions can't preserve themselves, just ask my copy of the complete works of Plato which fell out of my bag once and spent the night in the pouring rain! It was none too happy...
Would your grandma be able to read the Bible to me without the Catholic Church ever existing? Ummm...No. There wouldn't be any Bible to read to anyone.

The Church is authoritative because Christ established it. Jesus gave his authority to the apostles (Matt. 28:18-20), and his apostles gave their authority to the successive bishops--this is the apostolic succession.

Ron Sirkel

I appreciate your heartfelt response. My problem is that all of these over twenty thousand denominations claim that their theological conclusions come from being led by the Spirit. There is a very obvious problem here: Since many teachings are contradictory, how do you determine which ones are true and which are false?

Honorman

quote:

The difference here between Catholicism and Protestant groups is that Catholicism has a teaching authority called the Magisterium which lays out the official doctrines and dogmas of the Church. There may exist a culture of dissent within the Catholic Church, but to find THE positions of the Catholic Church one need only look in the most recent edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which I might add is quite readable and even edifying).

I have Geisler's book, and I am reading that as well. I am not converting right now, but I think these Catholic writers have made strong points that need to be seriously dealt with. Thanks again for your responses.

"Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."--Paul Simon

AlyoshaKaramazov
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 49

Posted 1/9/2003 6:02 PM (GMT -6)

Okay, I apparently have no idea how to quote you guys. I thought I was doing it correctly, but you'll just have to guess what particular items I'm responding to. Any questions--give me a shout out.

"Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."--Paul Simon

rsirkel
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183

Posted 1/10/2003 7:35 AM (GMT -6)

AlyoshaKaramazov,
You ask, since many teachings are contradictory, how do you determine which ones are true or false?

It is in doing the will of the Father that we know the doctrine of whence it is.

Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Galatians 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
Galatians 5:16 [This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

The love of God is shed abroad in our heart by the Holy Ghost, love does no harm to its neighbor and fulfills the law, doctrines may be skewed but the shepherds voice will say this is the way walk ye in it. Walk in the Spirit and the anointing will teach you. Part of the outgrowth of Christian life is rightly dividing the word of truth, but the new covenant is

2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

I am not saying anything different than the best theologians have written in their commentaries. But there is a popular contemporary mindset that speaks from religious culture that just parrots the cultural sayings, that in my view has its essence in fear and keeps people in bondage. Paul asks "having begun in the spirit are ye now made perfect by the flesh?"

Romans 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

If we don't get this right ( yes I think I'm on a mission), everything is off center. But I still can learn from these posts

Ron Sirkel

AlyoshaKaramazov
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 49

Posted 1/10/2003 12:32 PM (GMT -6)

Ron,

Thanks for your reply to my question.

quote:
The love of God is shed abroad in our heart by the Holy Ghost, love does no harm to its neighbor and fulfills the law, doctrines may be skewed but the shepherds voice will say this is the way walk ye in it.

Okay, you are appealing to the authority of the shepherd's voice to tell us which way to walk. I think there is definitely some validity to this with respect to living a moral Christian life; however, I'm talking about something much broader: There are over 20,000 Protestant denominations--HELLO!!! We Protestants believe very different things. For example, I am a big fan of Dr. Boyd's writings. Doc espouses an open view of creation, however, theologians like R.C. Sproul and John Piper believe that God meticulously controls EVERYTHING and has EXHAUSTIVE knowledge of the future because of His control. Doesn't this cut to our very idea of God and his relationship to us and the world? All I'm saying is maybe we need something more than private interpretation. Could this be why Jesus gave us the Church?

I have a hard time determining how the rest of your post related to the topic, maybe you could explain that more. Please don't speak in Elizabethan english this time--Methinks it might be easier for me to understand what thou art trying to communicate to me.

Thanks again for your response.

"Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."--Paul Simon

rsirkel
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183

Posted 1/10/2003 1:43 PM (GMT -6)

AlyoshaKaramazov,

No, that is why Jesus gave us the Spirit, to guide and teach us not the church. The church belongs to Him. Trust in Jesus and let Him teach you. You really need to get some confidence back in God.

In Christ

Ron Sirkel

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 1/10/2003 1:47 PM (GMT -6)

I think if you looked beneath the writings of Orthodox and Catholics you would see just as many who have differing views of God's providence and other such doctrines. Protestants are simply more visible in their divisions. Plus, I truly do not believe Protestants are that differing as you portray them.
For instance, all Protestants hold to the historic creeds of the Church. So I find your take on Protestants believing different things somewhat overblown.

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 1/11/2003 1:39 PM (GMT -6)

Hey there, alyoshakaramazov,

Say, all your quotes of my posts didn't come through correctly, so I can only guess to what you've referred. I hope I get it right!

ALYOSHAKARAMAZOV
How do you define the Catholic Church? And yes, the earliest Christians were without the ability to read, understand and interpret the scriptures. Not more than ten percent of the Roman Empire was even literate at the time. So yes, the earliest Christians were totally dependent upon the Church to teach them the scriptures.

KEITH
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. Are you saying that if there were no "Catholic" church (some few centuries after Christ), that Christians would NEVER be able to understand the Scriptures? People can learn to read and write. Otherwise they can have the Scriptures read to them. The Catholic church went way beyond this. They tried to control the people, remove their trust in the Scriptures and place it in the organization itself. If I were a Christian back in those days, I'd do what anyone could have done; gone to school, have someone to read to me, to teach me. I wouldn't HAVE to go to the Catholic church for this need. No one was doing it before they came along, and no one HAD to do it after they came along.

ALYOSHAKARAMAZOV
You are misconstruing Kreeft's logic here. Kreeft is saying that a fallible cause cannot engender an infallible effect, your example is the other way around. The bottom line is that the scriptures are infallible because they come from Christ--this is the same reason that the Church is infallible in its official teachings (found in the Catechism) (Cf. Jn. 16:13).

KEITH
Two things here. First let's look at your original post to which you were referring to Kreeft's thinking:
If Scripture is infallible, the Church must be infallible too, for a fallible cause cannot produce an infallible effect, and the Church produced the Bible. The Church (apostles and saints) wrote the NT, and the Church (subsequent bishops) defined its canon.

First, Scripture does not produce the church; Jesus Christ did: "I will build my church . . . " (Mt 16:18). Faith comes by hearing, not the church. Manusripts don't produce Christians, the Christ does. Additionally, nothing in Scripture ever teaches that the church is sinless or perfect in the sense that it is absolutely perfect of its own essence and nature. It's perfection derives from the only perfect source: God Himself.

Next, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God AND is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (II Tim 3:16). Further, "No prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation (or origin), for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (II Peter 1:20-21).

Now, this is why I stated in my original response to your statement based on Kreeft's logic, "that God established the church, a fallible one at that." He was working with sinful people, but still able to produce His Word. It'd be no different than if God spoke to you and said, "Write: I am going to the store." You, as a fallible person, could do that command and end up with an infallible statement from God.

ALYOSHAKARAMAZOV
Scripture itself calls the Church "the pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15)

KEITH:
What IS the church? What, specifically, was it when Paul wrote those words? It wasn't the Catholic church (that organization wasn't even in existance yet!), its teaching, its buildings, popes, cardinals or anything else related to it. It wasn't even a building. The church is PEOPLE! It is the house of God, the very body of Christ. It, therefore, does not need the Catholic church organization or doctrine to exist. It was doing quite fine before the Catholic church came into being. Many believers had come and gone before the Catholic's church was in existance.

ALYOSHAKARAMAZOV
The big problem here is what Paul is intending "scripture" to refer to. I don't see how the footnote helps.

KEITH
I'm not exactly sure what your point is without the quote that would have been here, but I think what you're referring to is my footnotes from the NET in regard to II Tim 3:15-16. The footnote was to substantiate "all Scripture", not just "all Scripture that is inspired", as if some of it's not. The OT was well recognized in Jesus' time as to it's validity and authority. All of it was accepted as God's Word to Israel. If nothing else, the apostles saw their words as authoritative and worthy of respect; there was no need of a later organization to come along and take over for them.

ALYOSHAKARAMAZOV
Okay, major problem of practicality with your (1) and (2). Not many people have the time or even mental capacity to learn Hebrew and Greek, not to mention the ability to read it in any kind of a fluent, helpful way.
Yes the Bible, which consists of manuscripts and versions, was preserved by Catholic monks! The manuscripts and versions can't preserve themselves, just ask my copy of the complete works of Plato which fell out of my bag once and spent the night in the pouring rain! It was none too happy...
Would your grandma be able to read the Bible to me without the Catholic Church ever existing? Ummm...No. There wouldn't be any Bible to read to anyone.

KEITH:
First, if I can't read Hebrew or Greek, I still don't need the Catholic church. And people are quite able to learn to read; they do it every day in school. Now, if the government under which they live is oppressive, sure, there's going to be some difficulty learning to read and write, but that still doesn't mean someone in the early days had to go to the Catholic church or all hope was lost, anymore than it means one doesn't have to go to the Catholic church in China or former Communist Russia to learn God's Word. One is a Christian, a believer, because one trusts in the finished work of the cross of Christ, not the Catholic church. I'm sorry, Alyoshakaramozov, but that's just the plain teaching of the Bible. If the Catholic church never came along, people would still be Christians and would thrive just as well. As I said, they were doing so well before the Catholic church came along.

Second, what specific versions and manuscripts did the Catholic church preserved? Also, for those it did preserve, when did it gain access to them?

ALYOSHAKARAMAZOV
The Church is authoritative because Christ established it. Jesus gave his authority to the apostles (Matt. 28:18-20), and his apostles gave their authority to the successive bishops--this is the apostolic succession.

KEITH
I don't have a problem with that at all. Just remember, this was being done for some two centuries well before the Catholic church came into being. Bishops, deacons, etc., all falling the traditions given to them by the apostles is what they were supposed to be following. This is not, however, what the Catholic church teaches. It went well beyond these apostolic jewels and created something quite different than the message of the gospel of Jesus and the teachings of the apostles.

Finally, I don't at all mean to be offensive. I may have taken too much liberty in my original post in not having recognized that perhaps you were on the side of the Catholic church. I should have been more respectful to that, and I'm very sorry, Alyoshakaramazov.

For the conversation,

Starkman

AlyoshaKaramazov
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 49

Posted 1/17/2003 4:43 PM (GMT -6)

Yo Keith!

Thanks for your response. A few things...

quote:
They tried to control the people, remove their trust in the Scriptures and place it in the organization itself.

Okay, but you need to cite specific historical examples of this, and these examples need to demonstrate that the Church's OFFICIAL teachings were corrupt and contrary to scripture.

quote:
First, Scripture does not produce the church; Jesus Christ did: "I will build my church . . . " (Mt 16:18). Faith comes by hearing, not the church. Manusripts don't produce Christians, the Christ does. Additionally, nothing in Scripture ever teaches that the church is sinless or perfect in the sense that it is absolutely perfect of its own essence and nature. It's perfection derives from the only perfect source: God Himself.

No one's disagreeing here. Catholics affirm everything said here, so I'm unsure of what the point is you're trying to make.

quote:
Now, this is why I stated in my original response to your statement based on Kreeft's logic, "that God established the church, a fallible one at that." He was working with sinful people, but still able to produce His Word. It'd be no different than if God spoke to you and said, "Write: I am going to the store." You, as a fallible person, could do that command and end up with an infallible statement from God.

Your point here is not very clear. If you're saying that God used sinful, imperfect people to write the infallible Bible, then, yeah, no one's disagreeing here. Kreeft's point in my original post is just that God used his people (the Church) to write his word (the Bible). Now the Bible (the effect) is infallible, why isn't the cause (the people of God under the influence of the Spirit)? You don't have to deny that the people of God are sinful or imperfect to affirm that they can be guided infallibly by the Spirit when revealing Truth. You need to more directly respond to this point.

quote:
What IS the church? What, specifically, was it when Paul wrote those words? It wasn't the Catholic church (that organization wasn't even in existance yet!), its teaching, its buildings, popes, cardinals or anything else related to it. It wasn't even a building. The church is PEOPLE! It is the house of God, the very body of Christ. It, therefore, does not need the Catholic church organization or doctrine to exist. It was doing quite fine before the Catholic church came into being. Many believers had come and gone before the Catholic's church was in existance.

You're setting up a false dichotomy. You're pitting the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church ("organization") against the people of God. The Catholic Church simply affirms that the Church is BOTH.

quote:
First, if I can't read Hebrew or Greek, I still don't need the Catholic church. And people are quite able to learn to read; they do it every day in school. Now, if the government under which they live is oppressive, sure, there's going to be some difficulty learning to read and write, but that still doesn't mean someone in the early days had to go to the Catholic church or all hope was lost

This is just historical anachronism. Seriously Keith, the vast majority of people in the Roman Empire in the early church (appx 90%) couldn't read! To say that they were able to learn to read is to impose your 21st century understanding of education, the availability of instructional books, teachers, time, general education level, etc. on the people of the first few centuries. The historical fact is that most people WERE UNABLE to learn to read! Thank God for the Church!

quote:
One is a Christian, a believer, because one trusts in the finished work of the cross of Christ, not the Catholic church.

Catholics would agree here.

Thanks for the conversation Starkman.

"Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."--Paul Simon

Buzzard
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2002
Total Posts : 3

Posted 1/17/2003 7:43 PM (GMT -6)

Amazing how many excuses and cunningly devised arguments
we can come up with to reject the written word,
and exalt men in its place;

quote:
Jobs Plea;

~{Job 31:35}~
35 Oh that one would hear me!
behold, my desire is,
that the Almighty would answer me,
and that mine adversary had written a book.
36 Surely I would take it upon my shoulder,
and bind it as a crown to me.
37 I would declare unto him the number of my steps;
as a prince would I go near unto him.

Moses begins to Write

quote:
~{Deut.31:26}~
26 Take this book of the law,
and put it in the side of the ark
of the covenant of the LORD your God,
that it may be there for a witness against thee.

--{The Reason}--
27 For I know thy rebellion,
and thy stiff neck:
behold,
while I am yet alive with you this day,
ye have been rebellious against the LORD;
and how much more after my death?

The prophets add to it

quote:
~{Is.30:8}~
8 Now go, write it before them in a table,
and note it in a book,

--{The Reason}--
that it may be for the time to come
for ever and ever:

--{Paul Saith}--

quote:
~{1 Cor.10:11}~
11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples:
and they are written for our admonition,
upon whom the ends of the world are come.

--{The Priesthood has always despised it}--

quote:

~{Isaiah 30:12}~
12 Wherefore thus saith the Holy One of Israel,
Because ye despise this word,

--{They trust in There Opinions}--

and trust in oppression and perverseness,
and stay thereon:
{Read Todays Headlines}

--{Words of Christ}~

quote:
~{~{Matt.15:9}~
7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth,
and honoureth me with their lips;
but their heart is far from me.

9 But in vain they do worship me,
teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Paul;
Calls it
through philosophy and vain deceit,
after the tradition of men,
after the rudiments of the world,
and not after Christ.

--{Paul Instructs Timothy}--

quote:
~{2 Tim.3:16}~
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures,
which are able to make thee wise unto salvation
through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:

~{2 Tim.4:2}~
2 Preach the word;
be instant in season,
out of season;
reprove, rebuke,
exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

--{For There are coming Men which will}--
3 For the time will come
when they will not endure sound doctrine;
but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves
teachers, having itching ears;

--{Christ Warns of "Teachers"}--

quote:
~{Luke 6:39-40}~
He also told them this Parable,
"Can a Blind man lead a Blind man?
Will they not both fall into a pit?
A Student is not above his Teacher,
But everyone who is fully trained
will be like his Teacher."
NIV

Chose your Teachers Wisly, Gentlemen

--{Christ speaks of The Writtings of Moses and the Prophets}--

quote:
~{Luke 16:27}~
The Request
27 Then he said,
I pray thee therefore, father,
that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:
28 For I have five brethren;
that he may testify unto them,
lest they also come into this place of torment.

The Answer
29 Abraham saith unto him,
They have Moses and the prophets;
let them hear them.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham:
but if one went unto them from the dead,
they will repent.
ie:

[*]
No;
I want something Different,

--{His Answer}--
31 And he said unto him,
If they hear not
Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded,
though one rose from the dead.
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.

Moses and the prophets,
speak to us today as they did in the time of Christ;
ie:
Thru the Scriptures:

Buzz. Asks
Is it any wonder the Priesthood of Men,

Despise the written word ??????????

Buzz:

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/18/2003 5:23 AM (GMT -6)

Buzz, no one is disrebarging the written Word. The Church inherited the Scriptures (Law, Prophets and Psalms) and used them in creating the New Testement.

Buzzard
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2002
Total Posts : 3

Posted 1/18/2003 8:43 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Buzz, no one is disrebarging the written Word. The Church inherited the Scriptures (Law, Prophets and Psalms) and used them in creating the New Testement.

Yep;
Same as the Israelites

quote:
~{Deut.31:26}~
26 Take this book of the law,
and put it in the side of the ark
of the covenant of the LORD your God,
that it may be there
for a witness against thee.

--{The Reason}--
27 For I know thy rebellion,
and thy stiff neck:
behold,
while I am yet alive with you this day,
ye have been rebellious against the LORD;
and how much more after my death?

Same thing Paul said "The Church" would do after
His Departing

quote:
~{Acts 20:29}~
29 For I know this,
that after my departing
shall grievous wolves enter in among you,
not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise,
speaking perverse things,
to draw away disciples after them
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.

quote:

Disparge
To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle. See Synonyms at decry.
To reduce in esteem or rank.

"""""""""""""""'
2.
To dishonor by a comparison with what is inferior;

to lower in rank or estimation by actions or words;

to speak slightingly of;

to depreciate\;

to undervalue.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=disparage

quote:
~{Is.8:12}~
12 Wherefore thus saith the Holy One of Israel,
Because ye despise #3988 this word,
and trust in oppression and perverseness,
and stay thereon:
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.

3988. sa'm;
maÆ<ac, maw-as’; a prim. root; to spurn; also (intr.)
to disappear:— abhor, cast away (off), contemn, despise, disdain,
(become) loathe (some), melt away, refuse, reject, reprobate, × utterly, vile person.
James Strong, New Strong’s dictionary of
Hebrew and Greek words [computer file], electronic ed.,
Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1996.

The primary meaning of Despise is to
to spurn;
According to Scripture,
it is the final authority,
not Man or any group of men.

quote:
~{Is.8:20}~
20 To the law and to the testimony:
if they speak not according to this word,
it is because there is no light in them.
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.

If John gives you council, and Pete gives another opinion,
too Accept Pete is too Spurn Joe's advise:

Over and over,
posters quote the Writtings of the Early Day Church Fathers,
This only shows What they Believed,
That proves Nothing, Notta, Not one thing,
except the opinions of Men,

These things the Jews in the Days of Christ had also done,
this is the reason he Rebuked them,
for exalting themselves, their Opinions and Teachings,
and their Traditions over and above Scripture:

and As Scripture Says

quote:
~{Luke 16:31}~
31 And he said unto him,
If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded,
though one rose from the dead.
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.

So what Good, does their writting do
ie:
If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded,
though one rose from the dead.

God Bless;
Buzz:

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/18/2003 10:51 AM (GMT -6)

So, Buzzard, you don't like the New Testement? Hmmmm......

CalvinnHobbes
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 88

Posted 1/18/2003 11:52 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
If John gives you council, and Pete gives another opinion,
too Accept Pete is too Spurn Joe's advise:

Ironic. . .

"The longer I live, the more I read, the more patiently I think, and the more anxiously I inquire, the less I seem to know." ~President John Adams

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 1/19/2003 10:41 AM (GMT -6)

Hey AlyoshaKaramazov,

Well, I think we're kind of at a stalemate here.

You quoted me:
First, Scripture does not produce the church; Jesus Christ did: "I will build my church . . . " (Mt 16:18). Faith comes by hearing, not the church. Manusripts don't produce Christians, the Christ does. Additionally, nothing in Scripture ever teaches that the church is sinless or perfect in the sense that it is absolutely perfect of its own essence and nature. It's perfection derives from the only perfect source: God Himself.

And then responded: No one's disagreeing here. Catholics affirm everything said here, so I'm unsure of what the point is you're trying to make.

To which I'd have to say what I've been saying all along: then we don't NEED the Catholic church.

You quoted me: Now, this is why I stated in my original response to your statement based on Kreeft's logic, "that God established the church, a fallible one at that." He was working with sinful people, but still able to produce His Word. It'd be no different than if God spoke to you and said, "Write: I am going to the store." You, as a fallible person, could do that command and end up with an infallible statement from God.

And then responded: Your point here is not very clear. If you're saying that God used sinful, imperfect people to write the infallible Bible, then, yeah, no one's disagreeing here. Kreeft's point in my original post is just that God used his people (the Church) to write his word (the Bible). Now the Bible (the effect) is infallible, why isn't the cause (the people of God under the influence of the Spirit)? [emphasis Keith's] You don't have to deny that the people of God are sinful or imperfect to affirm that they can be guided infallibly by the Spirit when revealing Truth. You need to more directly respond to this point.

To which I say, I'm not clear where you're going with this. people are sinners. The church is not fallible. The Spirit of God is infallible. The Bible--the infallible Word of God through fallible men--is infallable; it is second to no one or nothing else in authority and needs no one or no other thing to assist its authority save God Himself. Now, this said, I don't see what this has to do with the Catholic church since it came along well after the NT had been given.

You quoted me: What IS the church? What, specifically, was it when Paul wrote those words? It wasn't the Catholic church (that organization wasn't even in existance yet!), its teaching, its buildings, popes, cardinals or anything else related to it. It wasn't even a building. The church is PEOPLE! It is the house of God, the very body of Christ. It, therefore, does not need the Catholic church organization or doctrine to exist. It was doing quite fine before the Catholic church came into being. Many believers had come and gone before the Catholic's church was in existance.

And then you responded: You're setting up a false dichotomy. You're pitting the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church ("organization") against the people of God. The Catholic Church simply affirms that the Church is BOTH.

To which I say, by your own admission my quote stands firm. For you said, "The Catholic Church simply affirms that the Church is BOTH." Both what? THE people of God and THE hierarchical structure of the church is the Roman Catholic Church? I say again: no it's not. I know, AlyoshaKaramazov, that it must be very important to you to believe that it is, but the facts are clear: before the Catholic church ever came into existence--for a few hundred years or so--the Christians (disciples of Jesus the Christ) had thrived, were growing, and didn't need the Catholic Church.

The Mormon and Jehova Witnessess organizations have claimed the same authority but in later years: they are the real, true church of Jesus Christ. No one can truly be a believer without being a part of their organization and without adhering to their doctrine. It's simply not true. Not in the mid-1800s when these two organizations came along, and not in the few centuries after Christ's death when the Catholic Church came along. I don't mean that viciously, but as simple truth.

You quoted me: First, if I can't read Hebrew or Greek, I still don't need the Catholic church. And people are quite able to learn to read; they do it every day in school. Now, if the government under which they live is oppressive, sure, there's going to be some difficulty learning to read and write, but that still doesn't mean someone in the early days had to go to the Catholic church or all hope was lost.

And you responded with: This is just historical anachronism. Seriously Keith, the vast majority of people in the Roman Empire in the early church (appx 90%) couldn't read! To say that they were able to learn to read is to impose your 21st century understanding of education, the availability of instructional books, teachers, time, general education level, etc. on the people of the first few centuries. The historical fact is that most people WERE UNABLE to learn to read! Thank God for the Church!

Clearly the pre-Catholic Church believers were growing, learning, and thriving, even under horrible persecution, without having to be efficient readers, and doing so without the Catholic church and its doctrines. And surely folk could learn to read or write. It's not THAT hard, if one wants to learn. BUT if one is being supressed, that makes things hard. This has nothing to do with anachronisms. It's just plain simple facts. Folk heard the gospel being preached in their own cities. The Scriptures were read, and folk could learn accordingly. All without the Catholic Church.

You quoted me: One is a Christian, a believer, because one trusts in the finished work of the cross of Christ, not the Catholic church.

You responded with: Catholics would agree here.

But it didn't used to be this way, AlyoshaKaramazov. Remember the Inquisitions? Remember the Indulgences? These were official teachings of the Catholic Church, and they were a sad time of history in the Catholic Church (not that non-Catholic believers haven't had their own skeletons in the closet!). Scripture, however, does not teach anything like this and has never changed its original message of which I said, "One is a Christian, a believer, because one trusts in the finished work of the cross of Christ, not the Catholic church." Catholic Church or no Catholic church--during the early first few centuries or of these days--there has never been nor ever will be the NEEDof it, if by "need" one means that we absolutely have to have had it (back then) or have to have it (presently) or we aren't truly disciples of Jesus or we aren't truly in the real church, the body of Christ.

Once again, AlyoshaKaramazov, I'm very passionate about my beliefs of what I've posted, as are you of your posts. So there's no animosity or anything like that! It is a sensitive issue, that's for sure, and very difficult to word our posts carefully so as to not miss the points. I sure hope I've done that!

Gotta run!

Starkman

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/19/2003 12:00 PM (GMT -6)

Starkman. You haven't studied near enough. Bro. And those you have studied with are way, way too prejudiced. (What do you expect from online courses?) I guessed this would happen.

Keith, in the first few centuries "excommunication" was something a heretic did to himself -- by leaving the fellowship of the local churches and heading out by himself. "Catholicitity" of the Gospel message was evident, St. Ireneaus pointed out, across wide geography, and among both literate and barbarian peoples. And--get this--the exceptions of local expressions were the proof of the rule of the catholicity of belief, that the message of the Apostles of salvation in Christ was true and active in the Church. The Faith was found in the Church. That's what catholicity means.

Al

Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 01/19/2003 8:34:32 PM

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 1/19/2003 4:04 PM (GMT -6)

The church did not create the New Testament. God did. The church merely discovered the New Testament. Instead of running into the embrace of any "church," I suggest we run into the embrace of God.

49 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:53 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual