04 September 2005

Sola Scriptura?


One of the five major protests of the Reformation was the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. This belief holds that Scripture alone is the rule of faith. People that support this idea today are sometimes called "Bible believing Christians" and believe that Scripture can be interpreted by itself or that their personal interpretation is the right one. It is quite befuddling that these people attack the 2,000 year old Catholic interpretation of Scripture while they allow multiple interpretations of critical issues within the Protestant denominations, saying that they at least agree on the 'basics'. This idea is absurd, and it is extremely evident that the Bible cannot be the sole authority for Christians.

The Church is the pillar of truth that Christians can look to for the way to salvation. I am in no way degrading the Sacred Scriptures, as these are the inspired words of the Holy Spirit. The Bible, however, must be looked at in view of the Church's teaching. The first verses thrown in defense of "Bible only" belief are almost always 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Here St. Paul says that all Scripture is inspired of God, profitable to teach, correct... all so the Christian may be perfect, furnished to every good work. Perhaps I'm missing something, but no matter how many times I read this, I don't see where Paul says that Scripture is the sole authority of faith. But wait a minute! Let's read the context of these verses. Going back to verse 15, we see that Timothy has known these Scriptures from infancy. Timothy was an infant before any of the New Testament books were written. If Paul meant to make a statement restricting that which is profitable, then we should ignore the New Testament in its entirety.

If the Christian church was to rely on the Bible alone, what did those poor Christians that lived some twenty years before the first book was written and sixty years before Revelation listen to!? St. Paul seems to have the answer. "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15) This brings up another problem for Protestants/Evangelicals. Nowhere do we see that the books of the New Testament claim to be 'Scripture'. Neither do we see the authors of the New Testament books appealing to their authority because their writing is 'canonical'. What they do say sometimes is that the believers must accept their authority.

In the early Church, there was no such thing as a definitive canon. The first attempt at one was made by the heretic Marcion, around 150. He threw out the Old Testament, picked apart the Gospel of Luke, which he considered the only gospel, and accepted only 10 Pauline letters. We have records of the Syriac churches as early as 173 using the Diatessaron, a compilation of the four gospels into one commentary. The Acts of the Apsotles might also have been considered Scripture to them, but the Pauline epistles were not added until the third century. It wasn't until the fitfh century that the Peshitta replaced the Diatessaron in Syriac speaking churches. The Peshitta contains the books of the New Testament, excluding 2 & 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation. Eusebius noted that the four gospels, Acts, Paul's epistles, 1 Peter, and 1 John are recognized. Disputed are the Didache, Hebrews, Acts of Paul, James, 2-3 Peter, Jude, Revelation, and many others. The Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthias, and the Acts of Andrew and John are rejected. Finally, councils at Hippo Regius and Carthage at the close of the 4th century give us the canon that Catholics use today. These were later affirmed at the Council of Trent after Luther tried taking out Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. But that's another story. The fact is that the early Church did not just accept 27 New Testament books. It was a slow process, and it took an outside source, an infallible Church, to define the canon.

One more problem arises when you consider the multitude of interpretations of Biblical statements. Saint Peter warns in 2 Peter 3:16 that there are certain things in Scripture which are hard to understand, and if we wrest (twist) them, we do this to our own destruction! That is why when examining the Bible, we must look to the Church for the true interpretation of what we read. We see an example of the Church's authority in teaching in Acts 15:28. There the apostles in Jerusalem wrote a letter to another church, saying that "it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay no further burden on you than these things...". Here the magisterium, the teaching body of the Church, made a pronouncement with the certainty of the backing of the Holy Spirit. It was not a group of individual Christians, but a gathering of the bishops of the Church! When the controversy over circumcision came up, the apostles thought it necessary to gather together in union with Peter to make a decisive decree.

When you take into consideration all of these facts, it is obvious that the Bible is not the only rule of faith. Christians survived without the written word for decades. Once they had the written words, there was less than agreement over which were canonical. After all the books were agreed upon, there was still a need to faithfully interpret the Bible as the oral tradition had been interpreted. How that works will be discussed in my next post, but until then, it is obvious that the need exists. Christ prayed that all who would hear His word through the apostles would be one, just as He and the Father are one. Here I have discussed why the Bible must be interpreted by the Church for this unity to be existent. We will take another look at this prayer at the opening of the next discussion to find out in greater detail how that unity is achieved.

In the name of the Blessed Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
Jon

61 Comments:

Anonymous CatholicMom said...

All I can say is "Awesome". Thoroughly enjoyed it. Keep it up!

September 04, 2005 11:51 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

Thank you! :)

September 08, 2005 8:17 PM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

Isn't the Holy Spirit - which can correctly interpret truth - given to EVERY believer...not just your priests. You might notice the fact that God does not rely entirely on the clergy. If He did, then Jesus would have been a Pharisee or Teacher of the Law, as would have been the Prophets. The Scriptures are all that we need to know the Truth of God. God gives us spiritual authorities (not a denomination or stucture) to keep us in check - and that's your pastor, your elders, erc.

September 10, 2005 9:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Christians survived without the written word for decades."

Um, actually, CHRISTIANS didn't... The Catholic church did. That's why we had to have a reformation. ;)

And yes, the Bible is the only rule of faith. If it wasn't, then there would be a untold amount of wrong ideas infiltrated into it by fallible priests, a fallible pope, and fallible cardinals. The Bible is the only source of eternal truth, and cannot be trifled with. That produces heresy.

September 10, 2005 11:50 AM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

Christians survived without the written word for decades.

I have to agree with anonymous. After all, the word of God was WRITTEN. How could Peter have READ the letters of Paul (which he referred to in his epistle) if they weren't written. And how did the Christians in Rome know about the writing of John (Revelation) at the end of the First century unless the word was WRITTEN. It might have been treasonous in the Roman Empire, but since when does that ever stop God's faithful?

September 10, 2005 8:39 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

Isn't the Holy Spirit - which can correctly interpret truth - given to EVERY believer...

Yes, the Holy Spirit is given to every Christian in Baptism. But 1 Corinthians 12 clearly shows that the Spirit works in different ways. Nowhere does the Bible say that the Spirit gives each person the right to interpret the Bible. There can't be several correct interpretations given by the Holy Spirit in the Body of Christ. It's just not possible. Priests alone do not interpret the Bible. It is the teaching body of the Church, that has had the apostolic tradition transmitted to them, that interprets the Bible.

If [God relied entirely on the clergy,] then Jesus would have been a Pharisee or Teacher of the Law.

What did the disciples call Jesus? Rabbi, teacher. Our Lord clearly transmitted His teaching authority to the 11 apostles before He ascended into heaven. Matthew 28:16-20 says that the eleven disciples went to the mountain where Jesus told them, "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations... Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."

Christ first cited His infinite power, then He tells His apostles to teach with His power, promising them that He will be with them always. These apostles were the bishops of the early church. There successors are the current bishops of the Catholic Church.

The Scriptures are all that we need to know the Truth of God.

It contains the Truth of God, and we can know the Truth of God by the Bible. But the oral teachings of the apostles came first, before the Bible. With so many interpretations of the same Bible, we need to know what the correct interpretation is. If we believe a perverted interpretation, we do it to our own destruction as 2 Peter says.

that's your pastor, your elders, erc.

I'd rather not have some spring out of nowhere, self-proclaimed teachers of the Word of God, keep me in check. I prefer the constant tradition, told and handed down from one bishop to his flock, where one more bishop would rise up and teach his flock and so on, transmitted to us in this very age.

September 11, 2005 3:37 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

Um, actually, CHRISTIANS didn't... The Catholic church did. That's why we had to have a reformation. ;)

Thanks for stopping by, Anonymous! I've been getting used to the anti-Catholic ploy of calling Catholics non-Christians, but just to let you know, some other Catholics come here and they might get offended. So though I know you mean well in trying to save us, please watch how you word things. Thanks. :)

If you think back to early Christian history, remember that from the moment of Pentecost to the first book of the New Testament, probably 1 Thessalonians- written around A.D. 52, all we know of is oral tradition. Now, 1 Thessalonians was written to the Thessalonians, not the whole Church. Of course, that epistle is profitable for the entire Church today, but the problems addressed there were specific to the church in Thessalonica. Irenaeus said that the gospels of Matthew and Mark were written while Peter and Paul were in Rome, which would be the 60's. The written tradition did not come into place until then, and wre not immediately accepted by all as some thing called "The Bible".

The Bible is the only source of eternal truth, and cannot be trifled with. That produces heresy.

I see. So, without trifling with the Bible, what does Saint Peter mean in 1 Peter 3:21 when he says "Baptism... now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ". Or how about "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" in Philippians 2:12? The fact that these verses can be interpreted in more than one way means that somebody will interpret it. What produces heresy is when a lone monk goes against what the Church has taught for 1500 years.

September 11, 2005 4:14 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

the word of God was WRITTEN

Not for many years. Of course those letters were written, but the Church survived at least 40 years before any word was written. Besides, we have record of apostles and other Church fathers going to France, Asia and the East, Spain, Germany, and all over the known world with no Bible in tow. The Church in those areas survived without the Bible for many years. There was no printing press at all until the second millenium, and the movable type printing press didn't come until 1450. The Church had to pass down the tradition. Remember that Saint Paul ordered the Thessalonians to "keep away from any brother who... is not in accord with the tradition that [they] received from [the apostles]". (2 Thess 3:6) and that this tradition was "either by word of mouth or by letter". (2 Thess 2:15)

September 11, 2005 4:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But the oral teachings of the apostles came first, before the Bible."

Aha, and how do you know that? Because it was WRITTEN in the Bible.

"Of course those letters were written, but the Church survived at least 40 years before any word was written."

Actually, there was a Bible long before Christ came to the earth... It just wasn't completed. Where do you think that the Pharisees got their Mosaic Law and what do you think Christ quoted when he fulfilled the Prophecies of old?

"What produces heresy is when a lone monk goes against what the Church has taught for 1500 years."

Major logical fallacy here. Wow. How incredibly blatant. Okay, you committed a major Appeal to Tradition. Simply because something or someone has been around for a long time, doesn't mean they're right. Do you run on majority? If John Kerry would have had more supporters than Bush, would that make him a better president? For you to be consistent, you'd have to say "yes".

Also, how can you say that the Bible is not the only source of eternal and perfect truth? What other source is there on earth? The pope? He's no better than the rest of us! He commits sins just like everyone else...

September 12, 2005 3:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Remember that Saint Paul ordered the Thessalonians to "keep away from any brother who... is not in accord with the tradition that [they] received from [the apostles]". (2 Thess 3:6) and that this tradition was "either by word of mouth or by letter". (2 Thess 2:15)"

That's why Martin Luther kept away from the wrong teaches of the Catholic church... Because they weren't in accord with the tradition that the apostles laid down.

September 12, 2005 3:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What did the disciples call Jesus? Rabbi, teacher."

That's different from a "teacher of the law", though. Don't get the two confused. In Mark 2, Jesus tells us that he didn't come to reform and make good the system of religion which was currently in use, but to form a new one... The Gospel that all are saved by faith in Him. He says that you don't put new wine into old wineskins, or they will burst and the wine will be spoiled.

"I prefer the constant tradition, told and handed down from one bishop to his flock, where one more bishop would rise up and teach his flock and so on, transmitted to us in this very age."

Again, you're appealing to tradition. All it takes is one mistake in doctrine by one bishop, and then your whole line of bishops after him will be wrong.

September 12, 2005 3:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So though I know you mean well in trying to save us, please watch how you word things."

Apologies... Couldn't resist. :) I will honsetly attempt to break in nice, easy-to-understand words that Catholics are in an unsaved state so as not to offend anyone. (not joking)

September 12, 2005 3:35 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

Aha, and how do you know that? Because it was WRITTEN in the Bible.

Well, good try, but not true. I know it because the Church survived the first 20-35 years without any New Testament letters written. And, as previously shown, the final idea for one inspired book did not come until much later.

Actually, there was a Bible long before Christ came to the earth... It just wasn't completed.

Correct. Though many key doctrines came up after Malachi and before recognition of all the books of the Bible as canon. The fact that the book of James, which deals with some key doctrinal issues, took very long to become recognized, does not mean that the Church did not recognize the teachings held in that book. That is because She had been teaching those already.

Okay, you committed a major Appeal to Tradition...

Do not be so bold to compare political organizations for the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ! It is not a matter of majority, but UNIVERSALITY. The bishops of the Church, in union with the successor of Saint Peter, have held the same teachings. Read the Apostolic Fathers. These men taught in the same generation of the holy apostles, and all defend the teachings of the same Catholic Church.

He commits sins just like everyone else...

Good night. That's not what infallibility means. Of course he sins. The thing is that the Holy Spirit protects him as leader of the Church. Christ prayed for Peter specifically, asking that His faith would not fail. He gave him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, built His church on him, a foundation which the gates of hell would not be able to overpower.

September 12, 2005 6:09 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

Because [the teachings of the Catholic Church] weren't in accord with the tradition that the apostles laid down.

I would love it if you would try to prove that.

September 12, 2005 6:11 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

That's different from a "teacher of the law", though.

Uh, if you say so. But Jesus clearly established a teaching body.

All it takes is one mistake in doctrine by one bishop, and then your whole line of bishops after him will be wrong.

And that's an incorrect understanding of Catholic doctrine. The individual bishops are NOT infallible. They must be gathered together, in union with the Pope. Infallibility isn't about being smarter than anyone else, but being protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Now, here's what happens when what you said happens. (One bishop getting his doctrine wrong.) Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople. He had apostolic succession, but perverted the Truth. A council of bishops was called, in union with the Pope, and he was condemned as a heretic. THAT is the Catholic Church in action, preserving the Faith!

September 12, 2005 6:17 PM  
Blogger Jessica said...

You already know I really like your thing. :) And your replies have made me very proud! I'm sorry I haven't stepped in yet - I'm planning on it. As soon as I recover from the major headache these comments have given me. :o

September 12, 2005 6:46 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

Hi everyone, Jon here. I'm back on the neighbor's WebTV, so I'm anonymous for a reason. If my name does work, ignore what I just said.

Thanks Jess for stopping in and the kind comments. :)

As for the other comments... :)

Apologies...

Thanks, anonymous, for your pledge to use kind, easy-to-understand words in your attacks on us. We, the idiots of the Catholic persuasion truly appreciate it. Though I must say in our defense, I will believe the word of God that we have the chance and the means to die in the state of grace and be saved.

Looking forward to your replies,

Jon

September 12, 2005 7:24 PM  
Blogger Jessica said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

September 12, 2005 7:48 PM  
Blogger Jessica said...

You are showing up as "jonathan knox". :)

Thanks, anonymous, for your pledge to use kind, easy-to-understand words in your attacks on us. We, the idiots of the Catholic persuasion truly appreciate it. Though I must say in our defense, I will believe the word of God that we have the chance and the means to die in the state of grace and be saved.

Very nice, Jon. I have to say that I'm insulted by anonymous and his (?) stating that Catholics aren't Christians. But, then I realize that some people are just ignorant. :-)

Hopefully I'll be back later with more...

In Christ through Mary,
~Jess

P.S.: Sorry I deleted my first comment...I had forgotten something. :P

September 12, 2005 7:49 PM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

Anonymous,

There ARE indeed, born-again Catholics - such as these who you are debating with. Not all Catholics are saved but neither are all Presbyterians, Methodists, or in any denomination for that matter. The institutions are filled with many who do not know that saving grace.

Jon and Jess, You know where I stand and I can see that you base MOST of your argument on the doctrine of apostolic succession. Explain to me, please, where Scripture establishes this. Pointing to the priesthood of Aaron or Melchizedek will do you little good here because, as anonymous rightly pointed out, Jesus came to establish a new body. You have to agree with this premise else your argument for the primacy of Peter ("and upon this rock I will establish my church") falls apart.

Grace and Peace...

September 12, 2005 8:48 PM  
Blogger Jessica said...

I meant to put what Jon had said in italics...sorry.

There ARE indeed, born-again Catholics - such as these who you are debating with. Not all Catholics are saved but neither are all Presbyterians, Methodists, or in any denomination for that matter. The institutions are filled with many who do not know that saving grace.

This isn't a debate on salvation, but I want to get this straight with y'all. (I think D.J. and I had this discussion a while back, but I can't remember.) I have been baptized, and my soul is not in a state of mortal sin, so if I died right now, I'd go to Purgatory. However, if I died with an unconfessed mortal sin on my soul (say I murdered someone and never went to confession), I would go to hell. I do not believe that no matter what I do or how sinful I am, that I'm going to heaven. (Though I suppose then that I wasn't really "saved", eh?) And that is not what the Church teaches. Christ opened the gates of heaven for all men, but we must do our part. New Advent has a really great document on Baptism.

I have more to say, but it's really late, and I have to go to bed.

In Christ through Mary,
Jessica

September 13, 2005 1:21 AM  
Blogger pete said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

September 13, 2005 1:03 PM  
Blogger pete said...

Hello all!

Jonathan, I must first of all congradulate you on your evidently huge amount of history study! I really am impressed... I like it when people actually know what they are defending rather than just making blanket statements like Anonymous here.

Speaking of Anonymous, who is evidently a protestant, I would like to say that he/she does not represent the majority of protestants. He/she is being very ungracious right now.

I also would like to say that, although very interested in this conversation, I have little time to spare at the moment what with school having just started...

Lastly, I am a protestant... A reformed Presbyterian to be exact. Hence, I would so far agree with pretty much everything David has said and will hopefully be able to provide some interesting and profitable discussion at a later time!

I really hope that Anonymous has not completely turned off everyone by his/her rude conduct as most of us are not that way! :)

September 13, 2005 1:07 PM  
Blogger pete said...

I should say that I do agree with many of the things which Anonymous brought up... As does David. It's the way he calls everyone usaved who disagrees with him which bothers me...

September 13, 2005 1:12 PM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

I have been baptized, and my soul is not in a state of mortal sin, so if I died right now, I'd go to Purgatory. However, if I died with an unconfessed mortal sin on my soul (say I murdered someone and never went to confession), I would go to hell. I do not believe that no matter what I do or how sinful I am, that I'm going to heaven.

"as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us." - Psalm 103:12

And that is not what the Church teaches. Christ opened the gates of heaven for all men, but we must do our part.

Forgive me for saying that what "the Church" teaches is secondary to what the Scriptures teach.

"As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient...For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." -Ephesians 2:1-2, 8-9

Sola fide!

I should also say that I value tradition (more than most) but never place it in the place of, or equal to, the Scriptures.

September 13, 2005 5:13 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

Explain to me, please, where Scripture establishes [the doctrine of apostolic succession].

You're correct in that apostolic succession is a major part of our argument, but it is not the basis of it. The tradition of the Church, tradition from the Latin "to hand over, deliver, entrust", passed down through apostolic succession, is the means of consistency. I was going to save this for the next discussion, but it is closely related to this. I am sorry if it is not organized, but it is just a reply to a comment and not the intended original post. So please forgive me. ;)

After His Resurrection, Jesus appeared to the disciples and said, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." He then breathed on them and said "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." (John 20:21-23)

Here the Lord is giving the apostles a special blessing, sending them out just as the Father had sent Him. The Father sent the Son to teach the world. If you don't believe me, search "sent me" in the New Testament. It's there. He then goes on to give them the power to forgive sins in His name, which is another matter, but shows the authority He confers on them.

Another verse that shows the weight of the apostle's authority is in Luke 10:16. "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

Saint Paul in Romans 10:17 says, "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ." He doesn't say anything about what is written. Not to belittle Scripture, but it's just not the only source.

We see in Acts 2:42 that in the early Church, the doctrine had already become the teachings of the apostles, which the believers devoted themselves to. Saint Paul makes another appeal to his teaching authority in 2 Timothy 3:14. "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it."

Going to Saint Paul again, we see in 2 Timothy 2 a record of apostolic succession. Paul had earlier ordained Timothy. (2 Tim 1:6) Now he is telling him, "what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also."

Christ promised before He ascended into heaven that He would be with us always. He says this in conjuction with His sending out of the apostles to teach all nations. Apostolic succession is the only way this is possible.

September 13, 2005 7:55 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

Thanks for stopping by, Pete! I am looking forward to seeing you around.

As for anonymous, I would love to see him around here as well. Sometimes things get pretty heated in these parts. I am a very sarcastic person, so everybody please take my tone in stride. I want everyone to be able to voice their opinions here without being too uncomfortable. Unless that's the conviction of the Holy Spirit burning, of course. ;)

September 13, 2005 8:00 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

September 13, 2005 8:10 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

Whoops... left out a word.

This is getting into soteriology, but as long as we remain on-topic, I guess it's okay. If Jess doesn't want to reply to this here, that is quite alright. I think it's in the best interest of our health to have one discussion in one post area. ;) She can rely too, but then we should wrap that discussion up pretty quick, postponing it for later.

D.J., take the verse in context. Read Psalm 103:11. "For according to the height of the heaven above the earth: he hath strengthened his mercy towards them that fear him." Toward them that fear Him.... if you commit a mortal sin, you are doing so in spite of God. You must have full knowledge of the gravity of the sin and that is, in essence, not fearing the Lord. It is, in fact, mocking Him.

We know we have been saved by Christ's redemption. If we reject His mercy, however, we kill the life of our soul.

I hand this back to Jess, who could explain it a heck of a lot better than I.

September 13, 2005 8:14 PM  
Blogger Jessica said...

I hand this back to Jess, who could explain it a heck of a lot better than I.

Thanks, Jon, but I've said all I want to say for the time being. I must take care of my health - it's pretty delicate, especially in situations such as this.

Forgive me for saying that what "the Church" teaches is secondary to what the Scriptures teach.

And that is your opinion. If the Scriptures are all that we need, why did Christ go to the trouble of founding a Church? And not only did He found a Church, He founded one that, according to y'all, is wrong about many things - WHY? Did He just feel like confusing us? I cannot see the logic there.

I should also say that I value tradition (more than most) but never place it in the place of, or equal to, the Scriptures.

And that is where we differ. Neither Christ nor the apostles ever said that the Bible is the only source of Faith and all we need. Your interpretation is that Tradition isn't equal to the Scriptures. Personally, I'd rather go with Christ and His Church who, for 2,000 years, has handed down the traditions and teachings of Christ - and she's done pretty darn well, I think. She has had her problems, but her doctrines and teachings have never changed. I could cite verses, but I think Jon's covered them already - though we'll see how much good that does us, this thing is going in circles, and probably always will. :o

I could say more, but it's even later than it was last night, and I have a birthday party to run tomorrow.

In Christ through Mary,
Jess

September 14, 2005 3:17 AM  
Blogger pete said...

"I must take care of my health - it's pretty delicate, especially in situations such as this."

Oh! I'm sorry... Are you sick?

"If the Scriptures are all that we need, why did Christ go to the trouble of founding a Church?"

Because the Church is what provides help, answers, problem-solving, and a healthy atmosphere of Christian socialization. And they are to use the rules for Church and Church authority which are laid down for us in the Bible. The answers the authorities provide the flock with are to be directly from Scripture, the disputes are to be settled in a Biblical manner, etc. Basically, the Church is there to protect and maintain the flock.

Now, you will probably say, "Exactly! And that's what the Catholic church is doing..." But, such questions such as, Where in the Bible did Christ lay down a rule for pope to be head over the whole church? (I realize that you will imediately quote Mat. 16:17-19 and say that Christ appointed Peter as the first pope, but we will get to that later) Where in the Bible is anything said of Purgatory? Where in the Bible is it said that we are to worship Mary? Where in the Bible does it say that we are saved by works? (Again, you will most likely quote James 2:14-26 and again, we will hopefully get to that later) Where does it say that Baptism saves?

These are things invented by the Catholic Church (please don't take any of this personally... I'm only saying it for the discussion's sake, not to offend or point fingers) and hence are examples of how the church can make mistakes. The Church is not perfect. It cannot be wholly relied on for such things as doctrine and salvation. That's why everyone has a Bible, and that's why we have a Church.

These questions are what I would most like to have answered, and never have had answered in any debate about Catholicism. And yet even aside from these questions are objections that come to mind during discussion...

"And not only did He found a Church, He founded one that, according to y'all, is wrong about many things - WHY?"

Well, I kind of just covered this, but Christ didn't found the Catholic Church... Hence, we don't think the one He founded is wrong.

"Personally, I'd rather go with Christ and His Church who, for 2,000 years, has handed down the traditions and teachings of Christ - and she's done pretty darn well, I think."

Now, it's on points like this, Tradition, that I completely agree with Anonymous. You are indeed committing an Appeal to Tradition. Simply because something has been around for a long time, doesn't make it right. That is a major logical fallacy.

Also, your Tradition couldn't have come before the Bible, so how can it be more important or higher than it? David's right, Tradition is not evil, but it is not equal to or higher than the Bible. Why? Because it was started in the Bible!

"this thing is going in circles, and probably always will."

I agree... But I think it's healthy to have a discussion about it every now and then. I mean, neither of us is going to be able to convince the other, but it's interesting to talk about. :)

"I could say more, but it's even later than it was last night, and I have a birthday party to run tomorrow."

Fun! Hope you have a good time!

In Christ ALONE for salvation,
Pete

September 14, 2005 11:11 AM  
Blogger pete said...

"This is getting into soteriology, but as long as we remain on-topic, I guess it's okay."

I think it's eventually going to turn in a general debate about Catholicism anyway... But since the two soteriologies of our two faiths are so drastically different, it was inevitable that the discussion turn first there. :) Anyway, I'll try to keep in line with the topic at hand as best I can... Although I think I already oopsied in my last post. :)

September 14, 2005 11:14 AM  
Blogger pete said...

"However, if I died with an unconfessed mortal sin on my soul (say I murdered someone and never went to confession), I would go to hell."

So you will only go to hell if you commit a MORTAL sin? Aren't all sins the same in the eyes of God? Say if you slapped your sister rudely and then died, would you go to heavens?

If not, then I truly pity you... Lving in a constant fear of sudden death by which, having forgotten to confess something, you believe you will go straight to hell. I really do pity you that and wish that you could understand the peace that I have, knowing that all my sins are completely washed away by the blood of Christ, and that if I died right now, I would be thanking the Lord in Heaven for taking me so soon.

September 14, 2005 11:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Good night. That's not what infallibility means. Of course he sins."

Um, yes, that is was it means. Go look in a dictionary. It means perfect, flawless, completely dependable, etc.

Also, I would run that comment about the pope sinning past your confirmation teacher and see if he lets you convert... Most of the Catholics I talk to believe the Pope is infallible, above the Bible, and incabaple of sin.

Btw, I apologize for strong and sarcastic words I used earlier. It was not Christlike to behave in such a way. Although, if we're on the subject of apologies, your sarcasm wasn't pleasant to read.

September 16, 2005 1:36 AM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

Um, yes, that is was it means. Go look in a dictionary. It means perfect, flawless, completely dependable, etc.

That could be what a dictionary says, but is a dictionary infallible? That is not the definition the Church meant when she defined infallibility. It was the First Vatican Council in the 19th century that defined papal infallibility. To see the actual conditions and definition of this doctrine, see http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5413#def (3-9)

Most of the Catholics I talk to believe the Pope is infallible, above the Bible, and incabaple of sin.

Well then they don't know what they're talking about. Sorry. That's the way it is. The Popes have never proclaimed themselves to be sinless.

I'll get to the other comments over the weekend, since I'm in school right now. :0

Jon

September 16, 2005 8:34 AM  
Blogger MVB said...

Wow, what a debate! My head hurts after reading all that!

First of all, I want to say that I am a Presbyterian. Now, I do not believe that all Catholics are headed to hell. I agree with David, some Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, are saved and some are not. We can be in doctrinal disagreements, but still all be saved.

I mostly agree with Anonymous right now. I know many Catholics who think the pope is a "God figure" and is sinless. They pray to the pope instead of God, because they believe this.

Jonathan: "However, if I died with an unconfessed mortal sin on my soul (say I murdered someone and never went to confession), I would go to hell."

Yikes! You Catholics have no comfort then, when Christ died on the cross, what do you think He died for? To save us from our sins! When we are saved, we are cleansed, so yes, we confess our sins but if we have committed a unconfessed moral sin doesn't mean that we are going to hell. It is BECAUSE of our sins that Christ died on the cross! What about the thief on the cross next to Jesus? Every time he sinned in his life, he didn't go before a priest confessing. Did Jesus lie? Christ is the GOD OF ALL COMFORT! To you He seems the God of all Terror! We are not perfect, you will forget to confess a "moral sin" some time in your life, but if you are saved than Christ will have forgiven you anyway!


"If the Scriptures are all that we need, why did Christ go to the trouble of founding a Church?"

Well Pete did a good job answering this one. A church is to spread the Word, a church is to HELP explain the Bible. HELP us with some passage we may not be able to understand.


"Forgive me for saying that what "the Church" teaches is secondary to what the Scriptures teach."

Exactly! How dare we think that anything we do or say, can in any way compare to the holy Scriptures! Man's word versus God's Word, it's not just our opinion, it is a fact that God's Word is greater. He is the supreme authority. When Paul preached ( in the New Testament to the Berians(sp?), they went to the Bible to confirm what Paul was saying. The Bible was the absolute authority and still is.


There is so much to talk about here, this should actually be broken into several different threads. Well, I've got to go now, but I'll be back.
* said in an Arnold Schwarzenegger voice*

September 17, 2005 11:51 AM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

This is gonna be a long day! lol.

Because the Church is what provides help, answers, problem-solving, and a healthy atmosphere of Christian socialization.

Now I can't find any proof of that in Scripture or the early documents of the Church. Of course, the Church does all of those things, but She is also the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15). Pillars and bulwarks are things which support something, this case being the truth which we live by.

Where in the Bible did Christ lay down a rule for pope to be head over the whole church?

Christ clearly established Peter as the shepherd of the Church. Not only in those verses, but also in John 21:15-17.

Where in the Bible is anything said of Purgatory?

Check in one of those books of the Bible that Luther took out. They were in the original KJV, by the way.

Where in the Bible is it said that we are to worship Mary?

Once again, Catholics do not worship Mary. We honor her and the difference in latria and dulia/hyperdulia is clear to those that want to see it. For those who don't, the main difference is that latria, worship given to God, is sacrificial. It is a reverence infinitely above that which is given to the saints. The central part of this worship is the Mass, where the same sacrifice of Christ is re-presented on the altar. We recognize the Trinity alone as God, and give worship to whom we recognize as God. As for the lower degrees of reverence, that is the same honor you would give to your earthly lords. We know this is not a bad thing, and the Old Testament Hebrew does not even distinguish between "worship" given to God, and "obeisance" given to King David, among others. At least not in the semantics of it all. The difference is in context. Who do we recognize as God and who do we just give our love to. I could do a whole paper on this, and I probably will sometime soon. ;)

Where in the Bible does it say that we are saved by works?

Again, this is not a Catholic belief. In fact, the Council of Trent said, "[N]one of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification; for if it is by grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the Apostle [Paul] says, grace is no more grace". Now God does reward us for our works, but even that only comes from the grace given to us.

Where does it say that Baptism saves?

Once again, you must realize that Catholics believe that the grace conferred in Baptism, as with all other sacraments, comes from the merits of Christ- His death on the cross. Now, verses that support the saving grace of Christ given [b]through[/b] Baptism include John 3:5, Romans 6, and especially 1 Peter 3:18-21. For the sake of space, please look those up to see what I am saying.

The Church is not perfect... that's why everyone has a Bible...

Okay, for the sake of argument and simplicity, let's say that the canon of the Bible was decided before even A.D. 300. (Which it [b]was not[/b]) If this was true, that the canon was closed and that books with the word Bible printed on the front were to be made, we run into a few problems. The Bible has around 1 million words in it... how long does it take for you to hand write 1000 words? Multiply that by 1000, then multiply it by at least 2 since you're copying, and consider the fact that you are probably pretty nervous considering the people are going to be lost without this reproduction you're making. A year later you're done and you've only provided your little brother with his own Bible. Yeah right. It was by no means possible for there to be a Bible for everyone.

Christ didn't found the Catholic Church...

Well, read your history and you'll find there is an undivided, universal (catholic) church from Christ and the apostles throughout the persecution by the Romans. There were small heretical groups that broke off, but were for the most part defeated by the very conservative spirit of the time. Constantine's Edict of Milan ended the persecution of Christianity, and the Christians were allowed to meet in public. Prior to this time, various Church Fathers wrote out against heresies, and we have their books today. Only 13 years after the edict, the First Council of Nicaea was convoked, condemning Arianism. The Church began to condemn widespread heresy through these councils, and a few more groups broke off the One Church. Then came Nestorianism, rejected by the Council of Ephesus in 431. Then came Monophysitism, which was addressed by the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The schism between the East and the West climaxed in the Great Schism in 1054. The eastern patriarchs contended that the Pope was higher in honor than the other four patriarchs, but was encroaching into their spheres of influence. They did not deny the succession of Saint Peter, nor his place in the western Church. But anyways, that's where the Orthodox churches come from, in large part. Then it all goes downhill with Anglicanism and the Reformation of Luther and others. In every case, you have groups breaking off from the One Church, which we call the Catholic Church.

You are indeed committing an Appeal to Tradition... That is a major logical fallacy.

If you want to hear a real logical fallacy, you might want to consider the fact that you take 66 books of the Bible as the inspired word of God, but then turn around and say that the tradition of the Church had nothing to do with the actual recognition of the canon!!! By the way, in human eyes, Christianity is a major logical fallacy. It takes more than a logical approach to try to grasp the mysteries of God. You need the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That is the major point I'm trying to get across. You can't say, "This says Bible on it, so I can interpret it as I like." When you think about it, you can't accept it without accepting the Catholic Church's decision on which books go in there.

In the Blessed Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit;
Jon

September 17, 2005 4:54 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

On mortal sin:

Mortal sin is about a choice. You must choose to commit the sin, and you choose to not confess your sins.

Now, it's not as bad as you make it out to be. First off, if you forget to confess a mortal sin, but we intended to, it is still forgiven. If the sin is remembered, however, it has to be confessed.

Catholics do not, or should not, be in a constant fear of sudden death. If a Catholic has committed a mortal sin, he or she should go to confession as soon as possible. Immediately after committing the sin and recognizing what he/she has done, they should make an act of contrition. Contrition is "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1451) Perfect contrition, that is, contrition that comes from a love of God and detestation of sins, "obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible." (CCC, 1452)

September 17, 2005 5:38 PM  
Blogger pete said...

"If you want to hear a real logical fallacy, you might want to consider the fact that you take 66 books of the Bible as the inspired word of God, but then turn around and say that the tradition of the Church had nothing to do with the actual recognition of the canon!!!"

You are now avoiding the question. To turn around and point fingers at me doesn't make you right. You still are committing a fallacy of Appeal to Tradition. You ignored this fact.

As far as your supposed presentation of a fallacy on my part, you failed to point it out. You listed no fallacy. I do indeed accept as truth the 66 books of the Bible, but it most certainly does not follow that I must then completely trust your church. I didn't say that your faith had nothing to do with the original doctrines. I said you have strayed from the path of truth in some areas.

September 17, 2005 6:02 PM  
Blogger pete said...

"Check in one of those books of the Bible that Luther took out. They were in the original KJV, by the way."

I fail to follow...

September 17, 2005 6:04 PM  
Blogger pete said...

"Well, read your history and you'll find there is an undivided, universal (catholic) church from Christ and the apostles throughout the persecution by the Romans."

Well, it's not really history that I'm after here. Reading some history of the church won't prove anything to me. It could always be flawed. It's the Bible I want evidence from.

Okay, I really don't have time right now to finish answering your posts, Jon, but hopefully I will get around to it in a day or two. Anyway, I got a couple comments in... :)

Also, let's all remember to try and keep this as civil as possible. I know no-one has been out of hand yet, but I really hate it when a debate gets out of hand. Mostly because I used to be pretty bad at it. :)

September 17, 2005 6:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a side note, since you are disagreeing with what I have heard so many other Catholics say on so many points, I'm starting to think you guys are pretty "disunified" within yourselves... :)

September 17, 2005 6:14 PM  
Blogger pete said...

Argh, that was me...:)

September 17, 2005 6:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

September 17, 2005 6:54 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

You still are committing a fallacy of Appeal to Tradition.

I don't believe in that fallacy. So that argument means nothing to me. :D I say that if there is such a thing as a fallacy in appealing to tradition, there is a fallacy in appealing to the Bible. After all, while we hold the Bible to be the written word of God, it was the tradition of the Church that confirmed those books as canon. You can't prove to me that the book of 3 John is at all canonical. Wait, I want to charge you with that. Please try to prove its inspiration. Gonna play devil's advocate here. If you can succeed in doing that, disprove the canonicity of the book of Sirach. Then I will admit to my fallacy.

I fail to follow...

Okay. You see, there was the Septuagint, the Bible the disciples used as in regards to the Old Testament, which had the 46 books Catholics today regard as Scripture in it, along with some others. 2 Maccabees 12:42-45, (available at http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=46&ch=012&l=42-45) clearly shows the idea of a purgatory. If you want more information about the topic, please see my presentation in a previous post.

I'm starting to think you guys are pretty "disunified" within yourselves... :)

Heh. Not true. Many Catholics are misinformed. What I write here is directly from the councils of the Church and clearly stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Well, it's not really history that I'm after here. Reading some history of the church won't prove anything to me. It could always be flawed. It's the Bible I want evidence from.

? In all civility, this didn't make sense to me. If you want to take that angle, you might want to discredit the whole Reformation, since it's not in the Bible. That is history. It is clear and obvious that there was an undivided Church in the beginning. I know you agree with me on that. After the closing of the canon, however, we can see in history that some groups did break off. That is an undisputed fact. What we have today in the Catholic Church is the result of the original Church minus the break-away groups. You can argue that She is corrupt, has strayed from the truth, or whatever else you want to believe, but to say that She is not the ongoing product of early Christianity is pretty indisputable.

Also, let's all remember to try and keep this as civil as possible.

Will try. If I get out of hand, tell me and I'll take a Tylenol and tone it down.

It's good to have you here, Pete. Looking forward to your next posts. I have Internal Assessment to do over the weekend, so I'll be pretty busy myself. ;)

Jon

September 17, 2005 6:58 PM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

I don't believe in that fallacy. So that argument means nothing to me. :D I say that if there is such a thing as a fallacy in appealing to tradition, there is a fallacy in appealing to the Bible.

just as a note, Jon, this is a debating term. Debate is riddled with "fallacies" and "rules." In order for your evidence to be valid, you statements cannot contain them. Appeal to tradition is only one example. There is also Appeal to the People (basically, appearling to emotion and popularity of a notion), among others.

the Bible the disciples used as in regards to the Old Testament,

Not true...The Palestinian Jews used either Targumim or traditional Hebrew manuscripts, which did not contain what is sometimes called the Apocrypha. The Septuagint is also questionable in many areas in regards to the translation from Hebrew to Greek - especially considering that some of the translators did not believe in YHWH.

Looking good guys...I'm learnin' tons from this debate.... :P

September 17, 2005 7:48 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

Debate is riddled with "fallacies" and "rules."

Oh, I know all about fallacies. I called my TOK teacher on a reductionist fallacy. I could say that in regards to the Eucharist, you commit an argumentum ad ignorantiam, right? When God comes into an argument, some rules of logic and debate just don't apply.

Furthermore, for my appeal to tradition to be a false assumption, the circumstances and conditions of the Holy Spirit working throught the Church have changed. God is the same always, and the Church as the Body of Christ cannot change in what she teaches. To argue otherwise would be a denial of the consistency of God.

September 17, 2005 8:13 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

The Palestinian Jews used either Targumim or traditional Hebrew manuscripts

The early Christians used the Septuagint. The members of the early Church spoke Greek, and the New Testament uses many, many quotations from the Septuagint. Check out http://www.geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/splist1.htm and http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

September 17, 2005 8:24 PM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

The early Christians used the Septuagint.

Depends on how you define "early Christians." Messianic Jews still continued with the Targumim and Hebrew originals. Even those outside of Palestine did so. Only in Sadducaic circles was the Septuagint popular (and they were rather Hellenized).

Looking at the site, Rick's grasping at straws in his case. Hebrew, arguably, is the original language of man and the language in which God spoke to His people. I'd say that takes precedence over the tongues of the heathen Gentile.

The members of the early Church spoke Greek

Oh sure, but most were Galileans and they needed it for business. Nevertheless, Aramaic and Hebrew were their primary languages and as the epistle of Peter shows, their Greek was not very developed.

September 17, 2005 8:38 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

Wherever I look, scholarly opinion just disagrees with you. The apostles spoke Greek (though I know their primary language would be Aramaic), the New Testament was written in Greek. I like the examples ScriptureCatholic gives better. They clearly show use of the Greek text.

September 17, 2005 9:11 PM  
Blogger pete said...

"I don't believe in that fallacy. So that argument means nothing to me. :D I say that if there is such a thing as a fallacy in appealing to tradition, there is a fallacy in appealing to the Bible."

It really seems as though you're purposefully trying to remain ignorant of what I'm trying to say. You said that heresy is produced when one monk goes against what the Catholic church has taught for 1500 years. This is an appeal to tradition, and unless you believe that logical fallacies are a good thing in an argument, you will just admit your mistake and move on. :)

"Heh. Not true. Many Catholics are misinformed."

Eh, that's basically a euphemism for "disunity". :)

"When God comes into an argument, some rules of logic and debate just don't apply."

In other words, to be spiritual, you must be illogical. So God isn't logical? Be careful, brother, of what you say. I pray I am misunderstanding you.

"...but to say that She [the Catholic church] is not the ongoing product of early Christianity is pretty indisputable."

Um, what do you think we are disputing? :)

"Will try. If I get out of hand, tell me and I'll take a Tylenol and tone it down."

Ha-ha! Do the same for me... I honestly appreciate honesty. :)

"It's good to have you here, Pete. Looking forward to your next posts."

Thanks! I appreciate being appreciated. :) (j/k) I'm glad this debate is interesting and profitable for all parties involved!

September 17, 2005 10:19 PM  
Blogger pete said...

"Wherever I look, scholarly opinion just disagrees with you."

To be entirely honest, and I'm sure David will agree with me here, I would rather be in agreement with Scripture than scholarly opinion. If scholarly opinion disagrees with me, it doesn't make me wrong.

September 17, 2005 10:21 PM  
Blogger pete said...

"God is the same always, and the Church as the Body of Christ cannot change in what she teaches."

The Church as the Body of Christ SHOULD not change what she teaches, but, being full of fallible men, can and does make mistakes and change what she teaches.

"To argue otherwise would be a denial of the consistency of God."

Not at all. Not unless you believe that man is perfect.

September 17, 2005 10:23 PM  
Blogger pete said...

"In all civility, this didn't make sense to me...?"

Apologies. I can see how that wasn't exactly a clear point I made.

What I meant was that I would rather turn the Bible as opposed to history when determining a Biblical doctrine or some such orientation. You probably actually agree... I hope. :)

"2 Maccabees 12:42-45, (available at http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=46&ch=012&l=42-45) clearly shows the idea of a purgatory."

Thanks for the clarification. However, the Apocrypha (from which Maccabees is gathered) is not a recognized book of the Bible in both Jewish and Christian sects. It was never canonized. It's only something Catholics use and hence has no authority or sway over me. Sorry. :) Any other evidence (that is veritable) for Purgatory?

"You can't prove to me that the book of 3 John is at all canonical. Wait, I want to charge you with that. Please try to prove its inspiration. Gonna play devil's advocate here. If you can succeed in doing that, disprove the canonicity of the book of Sirach. Then I will admit to my fallacy."

You very evidently don't understand what an Appeal to Tradition is. It is when someone (in this case you :)) claims that something is true and perfectly reliable simply because it has been around for a long period of time. All your comments about me proving the canonity of 3rd John has nothing to do with this fallacy. :)

"If a Catholic has committed a mortal sin, he or she should go to confession as soon as possible."

And what if they die on the way to confession? And by the way, I don't see anything about acts of contrition in the Bible...?

September 17, 2005 10:37 PM  
Blogger pete said...

Hope to hear from you soon! Have fun studying this weekend! :) (I hate it when I have to do that...) :)

September 17, 2005 10:38 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

Unless you believe that logical fallacies are a good thing in an argument, you will just admit your mistake and move on. :)

Yeah, in this case I really like those fallacies. The joys of being a conservative.

Eh, that's basically a euphemism for "disunity". :)

At least the teachers are united. The people are united at least in worship, same sacraments and all. Though there are some Catholics that don't take that opportunity. That's a sad case.

In other words, to be spiritual, you must be illogical. So God isn't logical?

In the eyes of the world, yes. Those rules of logic didn't come from God. At least not the ones you've cited. God is not natural. He is SUPERnatural. Miracles can't be explained by logic, yet we believe in them because they are supernatural.

Um, what do you think we are disputing? :)

lol. I guess so.

Ha-ha! Do the same for me... I honestly appreciate honesty. :)

Will do. ;) We've passed 55 comments on this post. Sheesh! :P

September 17, 2005 10:47 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

I would rather be in agreement with Scripture than scholarly opinion.

Well in this case, I haven't seen any Scripture to dispute the scholarly opinion. If there's anywhere in the Bible that says the Early Church used the Masoretic text, then I'll shut up about it.

September 17, 2005 10:49 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

I would rather turn the Bible as opposed to history when determining a Biblical doctrine or some such orientation.

Well of course, the Bible is in part an historical text. And it was inspired by God, so there you go. Though the history in the Bible only goes up to A.D. 90.

It was never canonized.

Actually, it was canonized. The same people that determined the books of the New Testament determined the books of the Old Testament, including the deuterocanon. In 397, the Synod of Carthage gave us the list of books that the Catholic church recognizes today....

Gotta run, I'll finish this later! Don't comment on it til I'm done :P

September 17, 2005 11:03 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

The Church accepted this list of books from then on. It appeared in the Latin Vulgate by St. Jerome. It wasn't actually defined until the Council of Trent, a few years after Luther started his little reformation.

For other references to Purgatory, please see my presentation on it. The verses are in there.

Please see above how my Appeal to Tradition is in fact, valid. I brought up 3 John because that book, along with most other books, were recognized as canon thanks to tradition.

If they die on the way to confession, they were at least contrite and had the intention of going... so that was forgiven. An act of contrition is like telling God that you are indeed contrite. (Sorry for hurting God in your sin, hating sin, trying to keep from sin in the future.) Contrition is a necessary and the first step towards forgiveness. It's all throughout the Bible. A verse that comes to mind is in Psalms 51 (?) very close to that if not exactly. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and [something...] a contrite spirit.

There, that's done. We need to cut this off soon, seeing as there are other things to talk about and it's going in circles. ;)

September 18, 2005 9:25 PM  
Blogger T.B. Vick said...

Jon states:
"In the early Church, there was no such thing as a definitive canon."

Actually in 382 at the Council of Rome a complete 'canon' was assembled (same as we use today).

John states:
"Luther tried taking out Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation."

Don't know where you got that information, you should have sited a source instead of merely staing it as if it was fact. The only epistle which Luther had issue with was James's, and this he recanted of later in life.

November 30, 2005 11:30 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

Thank you for your comments. Looking back to what I wrote, I probably meant the ante-Nicene Church. That list includes the deuterocanon, so when you say "we" do you mean you consider the deuterocanon canonical?

I got that information about Luther from Wikipedia, not the perfect source, but I double check when I use it. I've seen quotes from Luther's Works Where he doubts the apostolic origin of the books, and I've seen in other places where he did try to take them out. Though the point is, he went against what had been accepted for a very long time. Even if it hadn't been declared definitive and closed.

December 04, 2005 1:18 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home