tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post116413834059299879..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola ScripturaDave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-85104951855904160352013-08-23T15:31:45.188-04:002013-08-23T15:31:45.188-04:00The errors of Kalkas are so numerous it is hard to...The errors of Kalkas are so numerous it is hard to know where to begin to refute him. As Jesus said "the scribes and the Pharisees sit on the Chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they say to you, observe and do." (Matt. 2,3), shows that in the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament there was a divinely appointed teaching authority to protect the people from fools like Kalkas who wrest scriptures "to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3: 16). In the New Testament Jesus said: "He that hears you, hears Me." (Luke 10: 16), and "Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world." (Matt. 28: 20). Those words and the testimony of the scriptures showing St. Paul ordaining priests and bishops: Titus 1: 5-9 & 1 Tim. 3: 1,2, and the fact that St. Peter had a continual line of successors in the primacy (St. Peter died 67 A.D, his successor was St. Linus 67-79, after him came St. Cletus 79-89 etc..) shows the establishment of the Church and its hierarchy which would continue until "the consummation of the world." For 1500 years the only Christian church that existed was the Catholic Church, and all, everywhere, believed in the teaching authority of the Chair of Peter as the people of the Old Testament believed in the teaching authority and sacred tradition of the Chair of Moses. The words of Jesus condemning the human traditions of the scribes and the Pharisees were not referring to sacred tradition which safeguards divine revelation in its integrity and solves questions and difficulties, as the Council of Trent set forth the truth of the Gospel in opposition to the errors of Protestantism.Mary Elaine Murrayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04248367883138752032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-86796653041526632152010-06-11T19:44:20.239-04:002010-06-11T19:44:20.239-04:00Thanks for your kind words, Gregory. God bless ya!...Thanks for your kind words, Gregory. God bless ya!Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-13630028388125550482010-06-11T16:04:41.882-04:002010-06-11T16:04:41.882-04:00Hello to all
I'm a 20 year old college studen...Hello to all<br /><br />I'm a 20 year old college student. I am not equipped with a thorough, sufficient knowledge of this topic to contribute and provide support for this academic discussion. However, I will say this.<br /><br />I am a Roman Catholic, and proud to be one. I am also proud of the many people who have taken their time to live out Paragraph 900 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Dave especially). <br /><br /><br />I want to extend a reminder to all about Jesus' second Great Commandment "love one another as I have loved you." All of the Catholic Church's apologists, which there are many formally and informally, live out this commandment. They do their best to express the truths to the same Church that Christ established on earth. Though this love is not the "love" society defines, it is a love for your souls.<br /><br />I hope, in the deepest sense possible, that all who oppose Catholic teaching will at least take the time to read about the truths of the Church. Any commitment less is nothing more than an ignorant attempt to back away from a very important dialogue. <br /><br />The clearest sense of God's grace, his omnipotent power, and sacrifical love are all outlined in the beauty of the Catholic Church. Anyone wishing to prove me wrong...good luck. <br /><br />Blessings to you all<br /><br />a brother in ChristAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-88865707062583973292010-06-07T14:53:12.353-04:002010-06-07T14:53:12.353-04:00The epistle of Clement, who was a disciple of Pete...The epistle of Clement, who was a disciple of Peter and Paul and appointed by Peter as his successor, explained all this already in the first century:<br /><br />1 Clement: 42 and (part of) 44:<br /><br />"The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus the Christ was sent from God. The Christ therefore is from God and the Apostles from the Christ. In both ways, then, they were in accordance with the appointed order of God's will. Having therefore received their commands, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with faith confirmed by the word of God, they went forth in the assurance of the Holy Spirit preaching the good news that the Kingdom of God is coming. <br /><br />"They preached from district to district, and from city to city, and they appointed their first converts, testing them by the Holy Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of the future believers. And this was no new method, for many years before had bishops and deacons been written of; for the scripture says thus in one place 'I will establish their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'<br /><br />"Our Apostles also knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the title of bishop. For this cause, therefore, since they had received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have been already mentioned, and afterwards added the codicil that if they should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. We consider therefore that it is not just to remove from their ministry those who were appointed by them, or later on by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered to the flock of Christ without blame, humbly, peaceably, and disinterestedly, and for many years have received a universally favorable testimony. For our sin is not small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily offered its sacrifices." <br /><br />Note that it is the "eminent men" (other bishops) who appoint new bishops; the rest of the Church merely "consents." Seocndly, the ministry is seen to be one of sacrificing priests. Jesus Christ made the Twelve priests when he ordained them to perform the eucharistic sacrifice at the Last Supper.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-24405969444481865202010-06-07T14:41:42.707-04:002010-06-07T14:41:42.707-04:00Given that Dave prefers not to interact with you b...Given that Dave prefers not to interact with you because of your anti-Catholicism, I'll comment on some of the observations you made to him.<br /><br />Alex: First, the term "apostolic succession" is misleading, because it would suggest that the pope and cardinals would be apostles.<br /><br />Adomnan: No, we use the term "apostolic succession" not to claim that the pope and bishops are apostles, but to assert that they are the only legitimate successors to the apostles -- that's what the "succession" part of the phrase means. This seems reasonably clear to me, and if some are confused by this wording, we're happy to clear up the confusion, as I just did. <br /><br />Alex: But they are not, for otherwise they would have the signs of apostles, cf. 2 Cor 12:12.<br /><br />Adomnan: As I said, we don't claim they are apostles, and so this is a straw man argument.<br /><br />Alex: Second, the term "apostle" in its narrow sense applies to a Prime Witness of Christ's bodily resurrection.<br /><br />Adomnan: That's not biblical. Paul writes in 1 Cor 15:3-8:<br /><br />"The tradition I handed on to you in the first place, a tradition which I had myself received, was that Christ died for our sins, in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried; and that on the third day, he was raised to life, in accordance with the scriptures; and that he appeared to Cephas; and later to the Twelve; and next he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still with us, though some have fallen asleep; then he appeared to James, and then to all the apostles. Last of all he appeared to me too, as though I was a child born abnormally." <br /><br />Those "more than five hundred" were witnesses of Christ's resurrection and yet they were not apostles. Similarly, the women at the tomb were witnesses of Christ's resurrection and were not apostles. <br /><br />So, whatever the definition of "apostle" (in this case, for Paul), it did not mean "prime witness of the resurrection." Any eye-witness of the resurrection counts as a "prime witness" (because not secondary). <br /><br />Alex: Consequently, we could only have apostles in the period when it was possible to be a witness of Christ's bodily resurrection, i.e. the first century.<br /><br />Adomnan: We agree with you that the apostles were only in that first generation. We don't call bishops "apostles," but "successors to the apostles." The apostles ordained the first bishops and deacons and invested them with their authority, and then these in turn appointed successors. The only divinely appointed church leaders are those ordained by the apostles or their successors. (The bishops presided over the eucharist with the assistance of the deacons; members of the middle tier of the ministry -- whom we call "priests," short for "presbyters" -- were generally appointed by bishops, while the bishops were all appointed by apostles or other bishops. Thus, all three tiers of the hierarchy derive their authority from the apostles, either directly or indirectly, through sacramental ordination.)Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-8293601517907388962010-06-07T00:59:09.271-04:002010-06-07T00:59:09.271-04:00Alex: Did not Jesus tell us that we should pray fo...Alex: Did not Jesus tell us that we should pray for our enemies and bless those who hate us?<br /><br />Adomnan: Sometimes the most loving thing you can do for your enemies is to fight them.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-48510872637559829522010-06-07T00:54:26.600-04:002010-06-07T00:54:26.600-04:00Alex: Church Fathers, among themselves, did not co...Alex: Church Fathers, among themselves, did not considered their writings as infallible, and neither should we.<br /><br />Adomnan: Certainly Church Fathers who were also Popes considered their pronouncements ex cathedra Petri (as we say) to be infallible. <br /><br />Aside from that, it's no more possible to determine whether Ignatius, say, considered his writings to be infallible than it is to determine whether John or Paul did. I think all of these men spoke with authority and with confidence that they were proclaiming the truth, but whether that constituted an awareness of their own "infallibility" is hard to say and perhaps impossible to determine -- which is to say that it's beside the point. Perhaps they were too humble to regard themselves as infallible, even though they were. <br /><br />Alex: It is just an alternative to the Roman Catholic one. Whether it is true, that's another question, which, strictly speaking, is a different issue.<br /><br />Adomnan: Okay. But the question that interested me and that I commented on was whether this non-Catholic alternative was true. And I argued it wasn't. <br /><br />Alex: Which books of the Bible were not written by either a prophet or an an apostle?<br /><br />Adomnan: Mark, Luke, Acts and Hebrews. There are disputes about the authorship of some other New Testament books, but everyone agrees these I mentioned were not written by spostles. There is no indication that the New Testament prophets wrote any books: and Mark, Luke and the anonymous author of Hebrews were never called "prophets."Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-74979471135907093962010-06-07T00:32:32.924-04:002010-06-07T00:32:32.924-04:00Alex: When I talk about oral tradition, in this co...Alex: When I talk about oral tradition, in this context, I am talking about the teachings and words of infallible and prophetic character. The apostolic teachings, whether in oral or written form, have this prophetic character. <br /><br />Adomnan: We probably wouldn't call the oral traditions "infallible and prophetic." I wouldn't call them "infallible," because, as I said before, I am reluctant to call even scripture infallible. I prefer to call scripture "inerrant" and the oral traditions "true." Infallibility is a characteristic of persons, as I see it. The apostles were infallible; their oral traditions are true. <br /><br />Secondly, rather than saying oral traditions were "prophetic," I would say they were "apostolic." <br /><br />In any event, you seem to be trying to make your point by restricting yourself (and me) to the use of certain words and then drawing unwarrented conclusions from these words. I suggest you look at the reality -- that is, oral traditions were apostolic and true -- and avoid obsessing over particular words that may or may not apply ("infallible" and "prophetic").<br /><br />At base, I'm not interested in a merely semantic argument (one about words), but in the truth of the mstter. If oral traditions are apostolic and true, they don't need to be "prophetic and infallible." <br /><br />Alex: Nevertheless, can we accept these writings as infallible?<br /><br />Adomnan: Clement was certainly infallible because he was the successor of Peter as Rock of the Church, holding an office later called the papacy. And, as you know, we Catholics consider the Pope to be infallible when speaking from the throne of Peter on matters of faith and morals. <br /><br />Personally, I also believe that Ignatius was infallible, given his close relationship with the Beloved Disciple and the shining orthodoxy and inspiration of his surviving letters. He was fully vested with the truth. I personally believe that Irenaeus was infallible as well, as a Catholic bishop with a firm grasp of the apostolic tradition. I certainly don't find any error in his writings. However, that's my view, and I would not impose it on others.<br /><br />Alex: If we can accept these as infallible, should they not be included in the canon? If they are infallible, they should surely be included in the canon. <br /><br />Adomnan: Not at all. The implication of your statement is that any writing that is not included in the canon must contain errors, because if it had no errors it would be in the canon. However, there are many error-free texts that are not canonical. Besides, you are confusing inspiration and canonicity. The Church has never said that no books outside the canon are inspired. She only teaches that all the books in the canon are inspired.<br /><br />Canonical books are simply those inspired books that the Church authorizes to be read as part of the liturgy.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-86234697596970824302010-06-06T18:43:29.049-04:002010-06-06T18:43:29.049-04:00Hello Adomnan
Alex: The point is that the books w...Hello Adomnan<br /><br />Alex: The point is that the books written by the apostles and prophets were rather recognized as such.<br /><br />Adomnan: Many of the books in the canon were not written by either apostles or prophets.<br /><br />Which books of the Bible were not written by either a prophet or an an apostle?<br /><br />Kind regards,<br />AleksandarKalkashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01752910639010798761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-74720484629745736902010-06-06T18:33:50.502-04:002010-06-06T18:33:50.502-04:00Hello Dave Armstrong,
I said: "However, we d...Hello Dave Armstrong,<br /><br />I said: "However, we do not have any more prophets and apostles because their foundational ministries were fulfilled with the completion of the canon of the Holy Scriptures."<br /><br />Your question: "Where does such a notion come from? I see nothing in Scripture itself that suggests there is some magical line where Scripture is completed; therefore binding apostolic authority ceases. To the contrary, when Judas defected, a successor was chosen (Matthias), showing that apostolic succession was to be in perpetuity. And this is, of course, what the Church Fathers held. It didn't get overthrown till the arbitrary Protestant Revolution 15 centuries later."<br /><br />First, the term "apostolic succession" is misleading, because it would suggest that the pope and cardinals would be apostles. But they are not, for otherwise they would have the signs of apostles, cf. 2 Cor 12:12. <br /><br />Second, the term "apostle" in its narrow sense applies to a Prime Witness of Christ's bodily resurrection. Consequently, we could only have apostles in the period when it was possible to be a witness of Christ's bodily resurrection, i.e. the first century.<br /><br />See more about this on the following page:<br /><br />http://free-brethren.net/charisma.html#apostle<br /><br />Third, could you please explain why would the election of Matthias teach about apostolic succession, when you had at least 70 apostles who were contemporaries with Peter and John the Apostles?<br /><br />Kind regards,<br />AleksandarKalkashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01752910639010798761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-91084478894793256262010-06-06T18:19:34.882-04:002010-06-06T18:19:34.882-04:00Hello Dave Armstrong
I think that my question sti...Hello Dave Armstrong<br /><br />I think that my question still needs an answer concerning the Roman Catholic persecutions. To repreat: How can you know that the Roman Catholic Tradition is the true one, especially seen in the light of its dark history of inquisition and murder of heretics, wars, etc? Did not Jesus tell us that we should pray for our enemies and bless those who hate us?<br /><br />I fail to see how your web site answers this question, when it deals mostly with Protestant sins. I am not a Protestant. I am a Bible believing follower of Christ who respects Christ's command with regard to persecutions.<br /><br />Kind regards,<br />AleksandarKalkashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01752910639010798761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-79720552987048231232010-06-06T18:14:35.641-04:002010-06-06T18:14:35.641-04:00Hello Dave Armstrong
You asked the following ques...Hello Dave Armstrong<br /><br />You asked the following question:<br /><br />"What is your religious affiliation, and do you think the Catholic Church can be considered a Christian entity just as Protestants and Orthodox are? Can one be a good Catholic and be saved, or does one have to necessarily deny various Catholic tenets in order to be saved?"<br /><br />I am not a Protestant, but rather belong to an Anabaptist Brethren tradition. Anabaptists were heavily persecuted by Protestants during the Reformation. I do not consider the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and various State oriented Protestant Churches (Lutheran, Anglican and similar) as true representative bodies of Christ. Nevertheless, I think that a spiritual, sincere, Catholic who has fruits of the Spirit can be saved, provided that such person worships only God, i.e. does not engage in the cult of saints. It is not the membership of some church that saves, but rather the personal relation we have to Christ. That's my Anabaptist view speaking here.<br /><br />Kind regards,<br />AleksandarKalkashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01752910639010798761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-8741402911705843062010-06-06T18:03:38.159-04:002010-06-06T18:03:38.159-04:00Hello Adomnan
In my previous post, I said: "...Hello Adomnan<br /><br />In my previous post, I said: "It is obvious that oral apostolic teachings, those not included in the canon, were not completely and reliably preserved in other writings, for otherwise they would have been included in the canon."<br /><br />It seems that you have not understood what I am saying here, because you said the following.<br /><br />Adomnan: "There were unquestionably apostolic oral traditions included in the writings of Clement, Ignatius and Justin, to name just three. No Catholic thinks there is anything false in any of these early Church Fathers."<br /><br />When I talk about oral tradition, in this context, I am talking about the teachings and words of <i>infallible</i> and <i>prophetic</i> character. The apostolic teachings, whether in oral or written form, have this prophetic character. The question is whether these oral teachings are preserved in reliable books outside of the canon. I used the term "reliable" in the sense of knowing for sure that other writings containing some of the oral apostolic teachings are <i>infallible</i>. However, I concede that my use of "reliable" it could be misunderstood. I do grant that much of what Church Fathers teach is good. Nevertheless, can we accept these writings as infallible? If we can accept these as infallible, should they not be included in the canon? If they are infallible, they should surely be included in the canon. The canon, per definition, includes books considered as holy and infallible in the virtue of being God's words. Church Fathers, among themselves, did not considered their writings as infallible, and neither should we.<br /><br />Considering the question of the formation of the canon, I simply shared a non-Catholic perspective only because to show that the Roman Catholic theory has no monopoly on its answer. It was not meant to be as an argument, for otherwise it would be a question-begging indeed. It is just an alternative to the Roman Catholic one. Whether it is true, that's another question, which, strictly speaking, is a different issue.<br /><br />Kind regards,<br />AlexKalkashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01752910639010798761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-61119688251912569172010-06-03T12:03:28.397-04:002010-06-03T12:03:28.397-04:00However, we do not have any more prophets and apos...<i>However, we do not have any more prophets and apostles because their foundational ministries were fulfilled with the completion of the canon of the Holy Scriptures.</i> <br /><br />Where does such a notion come from? I see nothing in Scripture itself that suggests there is some magical line where Scripture is completed; therefore binding apostolic authority ceases. To the contrary, when Judas defected, a successor was chosen (Matthias), showing that apostolic succession was to be in perpetuity. And this is, of course, what the Church Fathers held. It didn't get overthrown till the arbitrary Protestant Revolution 15 centuries later.<br /><br />You have made Scripture the only binding, infallible authority (though Scripture never teaches that either -- making this position radically circular). Now you come up with yet another extra-biblical notion and make it the centerpiece of your authority and rule of faith, which is doubly absurd.<br /><br />Either this idea of a completed Scriptures nullifying apostolic and ecclesial authority is in the Bible or not. If it is, please show me where it is: I have never seen it.<br /><br />If it isn't, then you have again defeated your own position (a phenomenon that is rampant in <i>sola Scriptura</i>), by adopting a view that is entirely unbiblical in the cause of <i>sola Scriptura</i>: the principle that holds that only Scripture is binding and infallible. Thus, if this principle is not in the Bible, it is no more binding than anything else, and I have no particular (let alone compelling) reason to adopt it as my central principle of authority. It's radically self-defeating and circular. It's absurd. <br /><br /><i>Consequently, there is no such apostolic binding authority, except the one found in the Scriptures.</i> <br /><br />Again: where is this notion found? By your own premises and <i>sola Scriptura</i> itself, if it isn't in the Bible, then it has no force of authority, and certainly no binding, infallible force. It's simply a tradition of men: a thing you have yourself already condemned. Radical circularity abounds . . . <br /><br />Show me where this idea is found in the Bible. It may be there somewhere that I have overlooked, but I've never seen it, and I have written reams and reams of stuff about this whole topic and have replied to almost every conceivable argument in favor of SS.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-33160703823303976532010-06-03T11:48:08.104-04:002010-06-03T11:48:08.104-04:00For the second time (to bring this to the top of m...For the second time (to bring this to the top of my comments):<br /><br />To Kalkas:<br /><br />What is your religious affiliation, and do you think the Catholic Church can be considered a Christian entity just as Protestants and Orthodox are? Can one be a good Catholic and be saved, or does one have to necessarily deny various Catholic tenets in order to be saved?Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-45605256491448581052010-06-02T14:04:07.957-04:002010-06-02T14:04:07.957-04:00This is getting long. I replied on my blog.
http:...This is getting long. I replied on <a href="http://ephesians4-15.blogspot.com/2010/06/canon-and-consensus.html" rel="nofollow">my blog</a>.<br /><br />http://ephesians4-15.blogspot.com/2010/06/canon-and-consensus.html<br /><br />BTW, I had an unfortunate incident on my old blog so I had to start a new one. You might want to change any links becuase the old one does not work at all.<br /><br />http://ephesians4-15.blogspot.comRandyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16751516602395247675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-78256579747488857502010-06-02T11:24:43.093-04:002010-06-02T11:24:43.093-04:00How can you know that the Roman Catholic Tradition...<i>How can you know that the Roman Catholic Tradition is the true one, especially seen in the light of its dark history of inquisition and murder of heretics, wars, etc? Did not Jesus tell us that we should pray for our enemies and bless those who hate us?</i><br /><br />The "argument" from past sins and skeletons in the closet proves nothing, as I have argued for years. See my entire web page, set up for this purpose:<br /><br /><i>Historic Protestant Persecution & Intolerance</i><br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/protestantism-index-page.htmlDave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-44755906006964494652010-06-02T11:21:33.495-04:002010-06-02T11:21:33.495-04:00For the record, I went on vacation the day before ...For the record, I went on vacation the day before this whole exchange started.<br /><br />Now that it has attained great length. I would note that I am too busy to get into all this, anyway (at least today), am fairly bored with the topic (having written more on it by far than anything else), have answered most objections elsewhere already, and that others are effectively answering. They don't argue everything in the way I would (of course), but I think they are doing a good job.<br /><br />To Kalkas:<br /><br />What is your religious affiliation, and do you think the Catholic Church can be considered a Christian entity just as Protestants and Orthodox are? Can one be a good Catholic and be saved, or does one have to necessarily deny various Catholic tenets in order to be saved?Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-18362557853052653782010-06-02T02:13:20.796-04:002010-06-02T02:13:20.796-04:00Correction: This final paragraph, two postings up,...Correction: This final paragraph, two postings up, reads: "Otherwise, you don't have divine revelation, who just have opinions about the meanings of disputed texts."<br /><br />It should read: "Otherwise, you don't have divine revelation, YOU just have, etc."Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-50074934994886414852010-06-02T02:01:13.970-04:002010-06-02T02:01:13.970-04:00Alex: J. I. Packer said, "the church no more ...Alex: J. I. Packer said, "the church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity. God gave us gravity, by his work of creation, and similarly he gave us the New Testament canon, by inspiring the individual books that make it up." [J. I. Packer, God Speaks To Man, p. 81] <br /><br />Adomnan: I already more or less commented on this. But, reading it again, it struck me what an inept analogy it is. <br /><br />It is true that the law of gravity is inherent in creation. However, we would have remained ignorant of it unless Isaac Newton had discovered it. Therefore, we only know the law of gravity and can use it for technology and invention and draw further scientific conclusions from it because it was discovered and formulated by Newton. <br /><br />By the same token, if God inspired certain books, we would have no way of knowing what they were and of using them (in the liturgy and for theological enlightenment) if the Church had not identified them for us. <br /><br />So, actually Packer's analogy, properly understood. underscores the Church's crucial role in formulating the canon. Without that role, the inspired books, like the unknown law of gravity, would have remained unknown and useless to us.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-88166289257623428932010-06-02T01:37:21.157-04:002010-06-02T01:37:21.157-04:00Alex: It was only in the OT times and in the first...Alex: It was only in the OT times and in the first century of the NT times that there were people with infallible prophetic and apostolic authority.<br /><br />Adomnan: That's your assumption. We reject it. Why should so much of God's grace have been poured out in the first century, only to dry up later so that now we have nothing but this intermittent trickle? This amounts to an argument that Christianity isn't true: It was powerful and effective and infallible then, but now it's just a muddle. <br /><br />Isn't Jesus Christ just as alive today as He was in the first century?<br /><br />And what is more astounding is that you make God's activity through OT prophets more real, direct and powerful then than now that Christ reigns! God was revealing himself daily back then, and now all we have is a distant, fading echo of His Word in texts whose meaning no one can declare with any certainty. <br /><br />If I didn't believe there was a durable and present apostolic authority in the Church, I wouldn't be a Christian at all. And, no, the Bible cannot be that "authority," because the Bible is a text, not a person. Everyone can interpret the Bible as he sees fit if there is no infallible, apostolic guide -- and that is what all the heretics do, all claiming to have gotten it right as every fanatic always has claimed. <br /><br />Believe me, if I were inclined to make up my own Christianity out of the Bible, it wouldn't look anything like yours!Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-52667106076427544912010-06-02T01:01:21.387-04:002010-06-02T01:01:21.387-04:00Alex, I read your post about the blind man, but it...Alex, I read your post about the blind man, but it is really too peculiar and irrelevant an analogy to have any application. Ordinary Christians aren't blind. However, they need guidance to avoid error. <br /><br />Any fanatic can claim God is guiding him, and all do. In a faith based on revelation, we have to be able to know what God revealed, and that means not only knowing His words, but understanding/correctly interpreting them. A reading of God's word that may be mistaken is not a divine revelation. In order for God's word to be God's word, it must have an authoritative, infallible interpreter. <br /><br />Otherwise, you don't have divine revelation, who just have opinions about the meanings of disputed texts.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-39234295758637741552010-06-02T00:44:43.485-04:002010-06-02T00:44:43.485-04:00Alex, quoting Voorwinde: "Hence the conciliar...Alex, quoting Voorwinde: "Hence the conciliar decrees have the form: 'This council declares that these are the books which have always been held to be canonical.'"<br /><br />Adomnan: Actually, I believe they usually have the form "these are the books that have always been read in the church of Rome, church of Alexandria, etc." That is, the councils affirm that certain books have been held to be canonical by authoritative churches. They derive the canon from the authority of the churches that use it. <br /><br />Alex, from Voorwinde again: "It would therefore be truer to say that the canon selected itself than that the Church selected it."<br /><br />Adomnan: This is an example of that superstition I referred to earlier that comes from animating inanimate objects like books. Of course, books don't "select themselves;" people -- in this case Church authorities -- select them.<br /><br />The authority of the canon and our awareness of its inspiration depend entirely on the authority of the Church. No authoritative Church implies no authoritative canon. <br /><br />Frankly, there are many parts of the Bible that I would not consider inspired unless the Church told me they were (e.g., Chronicles, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Book of Revelation -- the latter is very interesting but strikes me -- as it did Luther, by the way -- as confused). I only know these books are inspired because the Church tells me. I don't get any "burnin' in the bosom" when I read them, nor, I think, does any person who is honest with himself.<br /><br />Voorwinde: "Canonicity is something in the book itself, something that God has given to it, not a favoured status that the Church confers upon it."<br /><br />Adomnan: Nope. The canon is the list of books the Church selects to be read in her services. <br /><br />How can being on the Church's list, which is all that "canonicity" means, not be a matter of the Church's selection? Doesn't the Church make its own lists? So, yes, canonicity is a favored status conferred on a book by the Church, the favored status of being read during the liturgy.<br /><br />Don't forget; that's all that a canonical book is: A book that is read in the liturgy. First comes the liturgy; the canon comes only after the liturgy as a function (or part) of the liturgy. No liturgy, no canon. And the liturgy is the Church's creation; thus, so is the canon. (Christ gave us the basic form of the Liturgy of the Eucharist, to which the Apostles added certain prayers. But the liturgy of the word includes readings, and the choice of those readings were what gave rise to the canon.)Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-43076370749229879192010-06-02T00:08:26.483-04:002010-06-02T00:08:26.483-04:00Alex: This recognition had further enabled that th...Alex: This recognition had further enabled that these apostolic and prophetic writings be widely circulated and used in the early Christian services.<br /><br />Adomnan: Actually, it was mostly use by major churches, particularly the infallible church at Rome, that formed the basis for canonizing certain books. <br /><br />Alex: Thus, according to the non-Catholic perspective, "the Church did not originate the Bible. Its inspiration is divine, not ecclesiastical."<br /><br />Adomnan: I disagree. The inspiration of individual books was divine, but their selection into a canon -- "the Bible" -- was ecclesiastical. You are wrongly assuming that all divinely inspired texts would necessarily end up in the canon somehow, so that there was no real selection by the Church. That's not true. Paul's lost letters were divinely inspired, but are obviously not in the canon, for example. The epistle of Clement to the Corinthians also claimed divine inspiration (which I would certainly accord it), but is not included in the canon either. <br /><br />Besides, there is no way for us to know whether a writing is inspired or not unless an infallible authority informs us. Therefore, we can only say the books of the Bible -- the New Testament at least -- are inspired because the <br />Church chose to include them in the canon. Jesus confirmed the inspiration of some of the Old Testament writings. <br /><br />Given that the Church is utterly free to select what inspired books she will include in her canon, it follows that the canon is entirely ecclesiastical. Inspiration is from God, but the Church determines the canon.<br /><br />Alex, from Leon Morris: "Moreover, any official action of the Church is late. We do not find it before the last part of the fourth century. But by then the canon had to all its intents and purposes been decided." <br /><br />Adomnan: Ah, but the canon had "to all its intents and purposes been decided" in those earlier centuries by whom? By the bishops of the principal churches. So, it was "official action" that decided the canon, both early and "late." Who else would have decided, if not the bishops? They didn't take a vote.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-81084515667592924522010-06-02T00:01:09.633-04:002010-06-02T00:01:09.633-04:00Alex: it seems that you are not familiar with the ...Alex: it seems that you are not familiar with the non-Catholic view,<br /><br />Adomnan: Oh, there's only one non-Catholic view? Yours?<br /><br />Alex: A non-Catholic, such as J. I. Packer would say, "the church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity. God gave us gravity, by his work of creation, and similarly he gave us the New Testament canon, by inspiring the individual books that make it up." [J. I. Packer, God Speaks To Man, p. 81]<br /><br />Adomnan: Frankly, this is absurd. A canon,as the word itself, which means "a rule" suggests, is simply a list of books that the Church authorizes to be read during the liturgy. It is true that all the books on this list are inspired, but that does not imply that all inspired books are in the canon. For example, St. Paul wrote letters of doctrinal instruction that that are lost. Since St. Paul wrote them, they were inspired. But they're evidently not included in the canon, being lost. <br /><br />Moreover, it is not true to say that every book outside of the biblcial canon is, ipso facto, uninspired. The Catholic Church does not restrict divine inspiration to the books of the canon. <br /><br />Once again, the books of the canon are, by definition, those inspired books that are authorized to be read in the liturgy. <br /><br />Alex: The point is that the books written by the apostles and prophets were rather recognized as such. <br /><br />Adomnan: Many of the books in the canon were not written by either apostles or prophets.<br /><br />Alex: Recognized by whom? They were recognized by the early Christian communities.<br /><br />Adomnan: They were recognized by the leaders of those early Christian communities, the bishops, successors of the apostles. <br /><br />Alex: They were recognized in the virtue of their authorship.<br /><br />Adomnan: Authorship? But not all New Testament writings were authored by apostles. And Ignatius and Polycarp had as close a link to St. John as Mark and Luke did to Sts. Peter and Paul. Clement knew both Peter and Paul. So, if Mark and Luke qualified for the canon based on their acquaintance with apostles, then why do not the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement qualify on the basis of authorship?<br /><br />No, whatever the basis for the canon was, it wasn't "authorship."<br /><br />But your theory -- that authorship was paramount -- would imply that Paul's lost letters would have been canonical, if they had been preserved.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.com