Cornerstone of our Catholic Faith: 2 Thess 2:15

[in_servitude]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

I hold to traditions, I simply place them under scripture and test them too it. They are not held as its equal, for it is God Breathed.

When people say that Sacred Scripture is "God Breathed" (as it does say in the bible), I ask the question, "Did God breathe the Gospel of Thomas?"

If not, then who says so? For, God does not point this out Himself directly to each of us individuals. He uses people to indicate what is inspired and what is not inspired. People.

Lincoln7 - what person do you go to to determine if the Gospel of Thomas inspired?

The fact is, the bible is a product of Sacred Tradition. They enforce each other. The bible does not stand alone.

[Lincoln7]

Originally Posted by in_servitude

When people say that Sacred Scripture is "God Breathed" (as it does say in the bible), I ask the question, "Did God breathe the Gospel of Thomas?"

If not, then who says so? For, God does not point this out Himself directly to each of us individuals. He uses people to indicate what is inspired and what is not inspired. People.

Lincoln7 - what person do you go to to determine if the Gospel of Thomas inspired?

The fact is, the bible is a product of Sacred Tradition. They enforce each other. The bible does not stand alone.

Hi in_servitude,

For my view of canon development, an excellent work titled 'canon revisited' by Dr Michael Kruger is very good. One thing I always have issue with, which the book also notes, is that Catholics often chide Protestants for claiming to follow a self authenticating authority (sacred scripture), whilst at the same time claiming for themselves a self authenticating authority (the magisterium) (1), indeed, what external authority authenticates the magisterium?

The church does play a role in development, but i think RC apologetics go too far in claiming the church plays the only role in said recognition and development (2), ignoring and often dismissing any intrinsic quality to the books of the canon themselves. (3), which with respect, I feel your question slightly touches upon; by advocating there is no difference noted by the christian with the 27 books of the canon, which God makes known to his church, which are consistent among themsleves and God breathed scripture, always viewed as such by one party in the church or another (2 Pet 3:16), intended by the Apostles to be viewed as such (Gal 1:1-24) (4)...., with blatant second century apocryphal, potentially gnostic works like the Gospel of Thomas..

What this all does of course is place the RCC magisterium above both scripture and tradition as the authenticator and interpreter of both. As NT Wright has pointed out, this view of canon recognition as needing an infallible guide commits a logical fallacy akin to a soldier who receives his orders in the mail, and assumes his C.o is the letter carrier, not those who dispatched it. (5).

Kind regards

Lincs

(1) - Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2012, pg 38
(2) - ibid, pg 36
(3) - ibid, pg 36
(4) - ibid, pg 37
(5) - N.*T. Wright, The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005), 63. Quoted from: Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2012, pg 37

[in_servitude]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

For my view of canon development, an excellent work titled 'canon revisited' by Dr Michael Kruger is very good. One thing I always have issue with, which the book also notes, is that Catholics often chide Protestants for claiming to follow a self authenticating authority (sacred scripture), whilst at the same time claiming for themselves a self authenticating authority (the magisterium) (1), indeed, what external authority authenticates the magisterium

The magisterium is authenticated by Christ.

Do you have an answer on the Gospel of Thomas?

[Lincoln7]

Originally Posted by in_servitude

The magisterium is authenticated by Christ.

Do you have an answer on the Gospel of Thomas?

Scripture is authenticated by Christ, I would say, as it is God breathed, it relies on no church descsion to make it so.

Indeed; it was never written by an Apostle, or one connected intimately to any Apostle. It is gnostic, as such is markedly at odds with the 27 books known as the canon which are internally consistent and of course, it was rejected by the early church.

Kind regards

Lincs

[MariaG]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Which tradition do I accept? Orthodoxy or RC?

Regards

Lincs

Just wish to chime in here.

As to which tradition, Orthodox or Catholic, shoud you accept is the exact question you should be asking, because it can't be Protestant.

[in_servitude]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Scripture is authenticated by Christ, I would say, as it is God breathed, it relies on no church descsion to make it so.

I'm unable to wrap my mind around the concept that the scriptures just popped into existence. That we all know what is "God Breathed" and what is false.

What was the mechanism or method Christ used to authenticate Scripture? We know that people disagree on the authenticity of the Septuagint. How might Christ help to resolve this disagreement?

Do you find it odd that Christ did not write anything down for us? Or, that he didn't have scribes follow him around taking notes? If Sacred Scripture was going to be authenticated by Christ, it seems like an obvious choice to make.

The fact that Christ did not do that, but rather pulled his apostles together as the start of his Church tells me that what Christ left behind was not some writings. Rather, it was his Church.

Indeed; it was never written by an Apostle, or one connected intimately to any Apostle. It is gnostic, as such is markedly at odds with the 27 books known as the canon which are internally consistent and of course, it was rejected by the early church.

Another couple questions that comes to my mind are, "What about all those people that are not able to read? How do they decide what is right?" Seems sloppy for Jesus to just leave us all in a lurch like that. Or, perhaps we are all called to become learned enough discern what is God breathed and what is false.

As for me, I do not have to even read the document (Gospel of Thomas). Rather, I choose to submit to the decisions of the Magisterium. So, it works differently for the two of us.

[kwortham]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Scripture is authenticated by Christ, I would say, as it is God breathed, it relies on no church descsion to make it so.

So, it just dropped out of the sky? How do you know which books belong without the authority of the Church? How do you know that Hebrews belongs? What about Revelations?

The Church was created without the Bible and kept the truth four hundred years before the Bible was created. It was not until the time of Luther that the concept of sola scriptura was created by protestants.

[Lincoln7]

In_Servitude,

I'm unable to wrap my mind around the concept that the scriptures just popped into existence. That we all know what is "God Breathed" and what is false.

What was the mechanism or method Christ used to authenticate Scripture? We know that people disagree on the authenticity of the Septuagint. How might Christ help to resolve this disagreement?

Do you find it odd that Christ did not write anything down for us? Or, that he didn't have scribes follow him around taking notes? If Sacred Scripture was going to be authenticated by Christ, it seems like an obvious choice to make.

The fact that Christ did not do that, but rather pulled his apostles together as the start of his Church tells me that what Christ left behind was not some writings. Rather, it was his Church.

Yes, Christ left behind his Church. And the Apostolic teaching was its foundation, teaching which is contained in scripture, as such, scripture functions as the foundation for the church. (1). How do you think the early Christians managed to discern what was scripture? This has been my point; I don't deny the role of the church in the discernment of the canon, I simply disagree with the Catholic apologetic position that suggests these books have no intrinsic value of their own which enabled the early church to know they were God breathed.. (2)

No I don't find it odd that Christ had nothing wrote down during his earthly ministry, he promised the Apostles that all he said would be reminded to them by the Holy Spirit.

You appear to have missed my point however; I said scripture requires no external authority save for God Himself to make it authoritative, I claim that it is self authenticating as it is the word of God. I have also stated the church did play a role in helping to compile the canon. But as I've said, you also follow an authority (the magisterium), which you claim to be self authenticating.. (3)If you say Christ authenticates it, I fail to see why said argument can not be usedw to support my position.

Another couple questions that comes to my mind are, "What about all those people that are not able to read? How do they decide what is right?" Seems sloppy for Jesus to just leave us all in a lurch like that. Or, perhaps we are all called to become learned enough discern what is God breathed and what is false.

Again, a tad off on my position.. The church received scripture, it did not make it. In the earliest days Paul's letters were viewed as scripture (2 Pet 3:16), the church has always recognised the canonical books in one location or another, it took time to gather them as one book.

As for me, I do not have to even read the document (Gospel of Thomas). Rather, I choose to submit to the decisions of the Magisterium. So, it works differently for the two of us.

I Submit to the decision made by the early church who rejected it as us apostolic and perceived its blatantly gnostic position. In choosing to submit to the magisterium; how do you know tht you chose the correct infallible guide to follow? Does it not need an infallible guide to tell you which one to choose, if we apply the same arguments used above?

Kind regards,

Lincs

(1) - Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2012, pg 36
(2) - ibid, pg 36
(3) - ibid, pg 38

[Lincoln7]

Originally Posted by kwortham

So, it just dropped out of the sky? How do you know which books belong without the authority of the Church? How do you know that Hebrews belongs? What about Revelations?

The Church was created without the Bible and kept the truth four hundred years before the Bible was created. It was not until the time of Luther that the concept of sola scriptura was created by protestants.

Hi Kwortham,

No, it did not, I do not postulate that it did. I know because God brings his church to a knowledge of the canon. The early church knew of scriptures outside the OT, see 2 Pet 3:16.. The witness of the early fathers, the internal testimony of the books themselves as being God breathed, all led to the early church placing them in a canon. The apostles intended for their works to be seen as scripture (Gal 1:1-24), (1) as such the church receives the works, but does not therefore give them authority. Apostolic teaching does not become authoritative only when the church says it is, it is authoritative because of Jesus Christ.

Again there is a lot of misunderstanding of my position here.. Yes; the church did play a role in canon recognition and development, I don't however agree with your position that it played the onl role.(2)

Also, what do we both mean by church here? I think of the universal early church, I wonder if you think solely of magisterium? For I would debate the historicity of the roman episcopal see prior to the mid second century..

As has been pointed out; Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of the church. And to pull this back to tradition, as opposed to canon recognition; is it the same tradition which says the Pope is infallible ex cathedra as that which names The Gospel according to Matthew, "Matthew"? As I've stated, Paul's traditions were received in full, hence the "stand firm" and "hold fast" language.. If modern traditions such as papal infallibility or the immaculate conception are indeed apostolic, they should prove abundant in early literature.

As for your second paragraph; how did the Christians prior to the fourth century know what was scripture then? And on SS; we could hurl patristic quotes all day.. But I simply state that scripture should be above church and tradition, as it is God breathed. Why would it not be placed in said position for you?

Kind regards

Lincs.

1 - Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2012, pg 37
2 - ibid, pg 36

[Porknpie]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

I hold to traditions, I simply place them under scripture and test them too it. They are not held as its equal, for it is God Breathed.

Lincoln7 -

Where in scripture leads you to put tradition below scripture?

[Porknpie]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Indeed, some parts of scripture are hard to understand, but those things necessary and essential for salvation are taught so plainly, one can indeed discern their meaning. I listen to teachers far wiser than myself for guidance in the difficult areas.

Lincoln7 -

Below is a list of things we must do to be saved that are from scripture. They are plainly taught by the Church and none are difficult to understand. What does your church teach you?

*I must be baptized with water and the Spirit. Mark 16:16, John 3:3-5, Titus 3:5, I Peter 3:20-21. (Exceptions: [1] If I desire Baptism but die before I can be baptized with water and the Spirit, God accepts my desire to be baptized, and [2] If I am killed (martyred) because of my faith, but I have not had the opportunity to be baptized, God accepts my death as my baptism, called the Baptism of Blood).

* I must do the will of God the Father. Matthew 7:21

* I must keep the Commandments of God. Matthew 5:19-20, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 19:17, 1 Timothy 6:14, and others.

* I must accept the Cross (suffering). Matthew 10:38, Matthew 16:24-25, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, Luke 14:27. Phil 1:29, and others.

* I must be a member of God's true church. Acts 2:46-47.

* I must confess my sins. James 5:16, I John 1:9, John 20:19-23

* I must heed the words of St. Peter, the first Pope. Acts 11:13-14, Acts 15:7.

* I must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ. John 6:51-58, I Corinthians 10:16-17, 11:23-30.

* I must do unto others as I would have them do unto me and love my neighbor as myself. I must feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, visit the sick and those in prison or give other aid to those in need. Luke 10:33 ff, Mt 25:31-46. "Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are very pleasing to God" Hebrews 13:16. Good works don’t save us, but we will be judged

*I must endure (persevere) to the end. Matthew 10:22, Matthew 24:13, Mark 13:13.

[in_servitude]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Yes, Christ left behind his Church. And the Apostolic teaching was its foundation, teaching which is contained in scripture, as such, scripture functions as the foundation for the church. (1). How do you think the early Christians managed to discern what was scripture? This has been my point; I don't deny the role of the church in the discernment of the canon, I simply disagree with the Catholic apologetic position that suggests these books have no intrinsic value of their own which enabled the early church to know they were God breathed.. (2)

No I don't find it odd that Christ had nothing wrote down during his earthly ministry, he promised the Apostles that all he said would be reminded to them by the Holy Spirit.

You appear to have missed my point however; I said scripture requires no external authority save for God Himself to make it authoritative, I claim that it is self authenticating as it is the word of God. I have also stated the church did play a role in helping to compile the canon. But as I've said, you also follow an authority (the magisterium), which you claim to be self authenticating.. (3)If you say Christ authenticates it, I fail to see why said argument can not be usedw to support my position.

It seems to me that you say that the Magisterium has no authority from Christ. This runs counter to giving the keys to Peter. Keys in the OT were used to signify an office. While people come and go, an office stays.

Acts Ch 1:15, the successor to Judas is selected. This demonstrates the Magisterium, as selected by Christ, replacing those that leave their office. Otherwise, why even pick only one person? Why not just install them both (why even install at all if there's not office?) Since they drew lots, it says that they were both equally qualified in the eyes of those present. But, there was an office to fill.

Additionally, history of the early church shows that it was the Magisterium that making decisions that Christ had not told them. They were not remembering what Christ told them specifically in Acts 15 when they were deciding if Mosaic law had to be lived in order to be Christian. And, it was Peter that stood, spoke, and settled the matter ("and they all fell silent.)

Go down the road a bit, and still there were arguments. I recently read the following article about the history of the acceptance of a Trinitarian baptism. But, it was the holder of the keys that settled the matter. The following link shows that even those in the Church in the early days didn't exactly appreciate the decisions being handed down. But, they did submit to those decisions.

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/art...sola-scriptura

Again, a tad off on my position.. The church received scripture, it did not make it. In the earliest days Paul's letters were viewed as scripture (2 Pet 3:16), the church has always recognised the canonical books in one location or another, it took time to gather them as one book.

I recall some quotes I've seen floating around this site regarding Luther's position on the book of James and Revelations. It might seem obvious to us now, but Luther made some strong statements regarding James and Revelations. The comments in James saying that faith alone was dead did not sit well with Luther. I'm just saying that the self authenticating nature of scripture doesn't fly. Two honest truth seeking individuals will come to different conclusions about the same text.

I Submit to the decision made by the early church who rejected it as us apostolic and perceived its blatantly gnostic position. In choosing to submit to the magisterium; how do you know tht you chose the correct infallible guide to follow? Does it not need an infallible guide to tell you which one to choose, if we apply the same arguments used above?

It is the history of the early church fathers that demonstrate the validity of the Magisterium. The way that we, today as Christians, understand baptism comes from the same thing.

[Lincoln7]

Porknpie,

Where in scripture leads you to put tradition below scripture?

I place scripture where it is as it is the inspired word of God. I don't think many traditions of the CC have a historical basis traceable to the early church or anything taught in sacred scripture.

But if you wish for a verse; there are numerous examples of the Lord subordinating traditions to the scriptures. You will say he condemns only human traditions, not apostolic ones. To which I answer "amen", however I think the point still stands; if tradition is not in accord with scripture, it is to be avoided. Hence why I do not adhere to many catholic traditions, as I perceive them as at odds in places with the bible.

Kind regards

Lincs

[Lincoln7]

Originally Posted by Porknpie

Lincoln7 -

Below is a list of things we must do to be saved that are from scripture. They are plainly taught by the Church and none are difficult to understand. What does your church teach you?

*I must be baptized with water and the Spirit. Mark 16:16, John 3:3-5, Titus 3:5, I Peter 3:20-21. (Exceptions: [1] If I desire Baptism but die before I can be baptized with water and the Spirit, God accepts my desire to be baptized, and [2] If I am killed (martyred) because of my faith, but I have not had the opportunity to be baptized, God accepts my death as my baptism, called the Baptism of Blood).

* I must do the will of God the Father. Matthew 7:21

* I must keep the Commandments of God. Matthew 5:19-20, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 19:17, 1 Timothy 6:14, and others.

* I must accept the Cross (suffering). Matthew 10:38, Matthew 16:24-25, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, Luke 14:27. Phil 1:29, and others.

* I must be a member of God's true church. Acts 2:46-47.

* I must confess my sins. James 5:16, I John 1:9, John 20:19-23

* I must heed the words of St. Peter, the first Pope. Acts 11:13-14, Acts 15:7.

* I must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ. John 6:51-58, I Corinthians 10:16-17, 11:23-30.

* I must do unto others as I would have them do unto me and love my neighbor as myself. I must feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, visit the sick and those in prison or give other aid to those in need. Luke 10:33 ff, Mt 25:31-46. "Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are very pleasing to God" Hebrews 13:16. Good works don’t save us, but we will be judged

*I must endure (persevere) to the end. Matthew 10:22, Matthew 24:13, Mark 13:13.

Much of this i agree with, some I do not, I feel we would be far removed from the topic if we got into them however. Apologies.

Lincs

[Lincoln7]

In servitude,

It seems to me that you say that the Magisterium has no authority from Christ. This runs counter to giving the keys to Peter. Keys in the OT were used to signify an office. While people come and go, an office stays.

Acts Ch 1:15, the successor to Judas is selected. This demonstrates the Magisterium, as selected by Christ, replacing those that leave their office. Otherwise, why even pick only one person? Why not just install them both (why even install at all if there's not office?) Since they drew lots, it says that they were both equally qualified in the eyes of those present. But, there was an office to fill.

Peter is given the keys indeed, as are all the apostles and the whole church in Matt 18:18. If you are referring to the oft quoted Isaiah 22 claimed parralell, I debate Peter as anything more than first amongst equals in the church, certainy a church pillar, certainly a leader, but I don't see him as functioning as a modern pope..

Yes a successor is appointed to the apostolic office, I don't debate an apostolic office, I do debate a papacy..

Additionally, history of the early church shows that it was the Magisterium that making decisions that Christ had not told them. They were not remembering what Christ told them specifically in Acts 15 when they were deciding if Mosaic law had to be lived in order to be Christian. And, it was Peter that stood, spoke, and settled the matter ("and they all fell silent.)

I would say histry shows anything but a magisterium, I don't see this as an apostolic tradition.. Indeed at the Jerusalem council the appstles made a decision, Peter played a central role, as did Paul and Barnabas, who lectured to the silent members of the council, as did James, who closed it with his judgment. "Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God," (Acts 15:19) As such I see it as a plurality decision, there is no papacy here.

Go down the road a bit, and still there were arguments. I recently read the following article about the history of the acceptance of a Trinitarian baptism. But, it was the holder of the keys that settled the matter. The following link shows that even those in the Church in the early days didn't exactly appreciate the decisions being handed down. But, they did submit to those decisions.

I'd say Cyprian serves to argue against any notion of a papacy as an apostolic tradition, he is noted for his refusal to obey Romes bishop, which I find awkward if indeed, paraphrasing Vatican 1; the bishop in Rome has "always" been viewed as the sole successor to Peter and head of all.. One need look no further than the church of Rome on the eve of the second century to see that Rome does not even possess a single episcopal see, rather is still governed by a plurality of elders.. http://beggarsallreformation.blogspo...luminated.html

recall some quotes I've seen floating around this site regarding Luther's position on the book of James and Revelations. It might seem obvious to us now, but Luther made some strong statements regarding James and Revelations. The comments in James saying that faith alone was dead did not sit well with Luther. I'm just saying that the self authenticating nature of scripture doesn't fly. Two honest truth seeking individuals will come to different conclusions about the same text.

Indeed, Luther made comments, they are analysed here; http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm
If the self authenticating nature of scripture doesn't fly, how did the early church receive them as scripture? Unless you're arguing for an arbitrary descsion made by a late council, prior to which no one had a knowledge of any canonical books.. A claim most foreign to history... And certainly not one I would use in evangelism.

It is the history of the early church fathers that demonstrate the validity of the Magisterium. The way that we, today as Christians, understand baptism comes from the same thing.

The link above demonstrates the lack of a monarchial bishop in Rome prior to the mid second century, much more could be brought to bare upon this subject.. Yes Stepehen was correct, I'm unsure how this therefore means he was a pope, as opposed to one bishop amongst others who taught a correct view.

Kind regards

Lincs