About Downloads User Lists Help Study Marking Back to TCO
Bible Study

Forum

Sola Scriptura And Papal Authority, Back to the 1st Century basics.
« Previous | Next » | Back to Index
Evangelion
Posted: Jan 12 2003, 02:45 PM  

Archived Post
With Regard to Sola Scriptura:

    Objection #1:

    The doctrine of Sola Scriptura cannot be found in the Bible itself. Protestantism therefore presents a self-refuting claim.

This is a misrepresentation. Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine at all, but a basis for the formulation and definition of doctrine. It is an epistemological principle, not an article of faith. The Christadelphian Statement of Faith refers to Sola Scriptura as “The Foundation.” It is not considered a “Doctrine to be Accepted.” In fact, it is not a doctrine at all.

The principle of Sola Scriptura is, necessarily, a post-1st Century approach. It is the only way to ensure that our beliefs are founded upon the Word of God, and not on the ideas of men. Since those who originally received a specific teaching authority from Christ (i.e. the apostles) are long dead, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit have ceased, we know that the Word of God is the only doctrinal authority available to modern Christians.


    Objection #2:

    Sola Scriptura does not guarantee doctrinal unity – in fact, it invariably results in schisms and controversies.

In light of the East/West divide, which resulted from the Great Schism of 1054 (when the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Byzantine Synod refused to accept the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome), one could say the same of Papal authority. The fact that different Protestants derive different doctrine from the same Bible on the basis of Sola Scriptura, therefore, is by no means an argument against the principle of Sola Scriptura itself. It is freely acknowledged that the use of Sola Scriptura does not guarantee doctrinal infallibility.


    Objection #3:

    Insofar as they accept the New Testament Canon (defined by the Church), Protestants accept the authority of the Church. On what basis, therefore, can they legitimately reject the authority of the Church with regard to other matters?

Firstly, there is a world of difference between accepting a Canon that was at some point defined by the Church, and accepting a Canon because it was defined by the Church. Secondly, the Roman Catholic Church took centuries to arrive at an official Canon – despite being (allegedly) guided by the Holy Spirit. In light of her indecisiveness, one is forced to ask the questions “Why did it take so long?” and “How might we reconcile this prevarication with the claim to Divine guidance?” Thirdly, the New Testament Canon is the only Canon which both Catholics and Protestants have in common – a Canon which was defined by both sides (independent of each other) at different times.

Fourthly, the uniformity of the Canon as presented in the four Protestant Bibles published shortly before the Council of Trent (at which the Catholic Canon – both Old and New Testaments – was officially defined for the very first time) proves that the Protestants had already agreed on an official New Testament Canon without reference to the decisions of the Roman Catholic Church.

Even within the (allegedly Spirit-guided) RCC, there had been considerable disagreement from an early date, with various bishops defining their own personal Canons at various times. Athanasius, for example (writing in his festal letter of AD 367) lists the 27 books of the New Testament as the same 27 that are currently in the Protestant Canon – without questioning any of them. One might ask “If the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit, why did it take so long to arrive at an authoritative Canon?” If the (allegedly inspired) Magisterium had been leading the Church all this time, why the need for an official pronouncement by the Church, almost 1,200 years later? Athanasius certainly did not expect the Church to tell him what should and should not be considered Scripture – his Canon was the result of his own personal study – and neither did the other Church Fathers, such as Eusebius and Origen (whose own New Testament Canons differed from Athanasius’.) The very notion of an official declaration from the Church was wholly alien to them.

In any case, the Catholic Church centred in Rome never had any extensive control over the Eastern churches, which were in turn divided even among themselves. Ethiopian, Coptic, Syrian, Byzantine and Armenian Canons all competed - both with each other, and with the Western Catholic Canon (which itself was never perfectly settled until the 16th Century.)


    Objection #4:

    What is considered Scripture itself, cannot be determined on the basis of Sola Scriptura.

As a matter of fact, it can. The consistency of the internal evidence proves this beyond any shadow of a doubt. Jesus cited the books of the Jewish Canon frequently, while the apostle Paul (referring to the Old Testament) declared that it was “inspired by God.” That is the Biblical definition of “Scripture” – a divinely inspired message, written on behalf of the Father Himself. The apostle Peter confirms:

    II Peter 1:19-21.
    We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
    Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
    For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Of course, the New Testament was not called “Scripture” at the first, but its authors were clearly guided by the Holy Spirit.

Thus, from the NIV:

  • John 14:26.
    But the counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
  • John 16:13.
    But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
  • I Thessalonians 2:13.
    And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.

  • I Corinthians 14:37.
    If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.
  • II Corinthians 13:10.
    This is why I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my use of authority - the authority the Lord gave me for building you up, not for tearing you down.
  • I John 2:7.
    Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard.
  • II Peter 3:15-16.
    Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

(Emphasis mine.)

Many more examples could be given, but even these few are sufficient to prove that the apostles considered both their teachings and writings to be the authoritative word of God – which is consistent with Christ’s statements concerning the knowledge they would receive after his ascension. Since the apostles acknowledge the Divine influence under which they composed their work, we can be sure that everything that was produced by them can be legitimately referred to as “Scripture.” They meet the Biblically defined standard – Divine inspiration. Even the Early Church Fathers (whose writings were far more prolific) considered these works inspired by God Himself, and never made any such claim for themselves. They cited the New Testament Scriptures constantly, appealing to them as a divinely sanctioned authority.


    Objection #5:

    Protestants have no legitimate basis on which they might reject the Catholic Old Testament Canon, in favour of the Jewish Old Testament Canon.

The Jews of Jesus’ time already had a Canon, since the Torah had already been canonised in some form (possibly as early as 622 BC) when the true Torah was rediscovered and ceremoniously declared official by King Josiah, according to the Bible itself. (Though it was most likely significantly edited after the Babylonian Exile in the time of Ezra c. 500 BCE, in order to take into account the later writings of the major and minor prophets.) The surest decision was made in the 2nd century BC when the Septuagint was written.

Thus, from Josephus:

    We have not myriads of books, disagreeing and conflicting with one another, but only twenty-two [this number is arrived at by treating as one, certain books which Christian collators chose to define as two; for example, I & II Samuel, I & II Kings, and I & II Chronicles], containing the record of all time and justly accredited. Of these, five are the books of Moses, containing the laws and the history handed down from the creation of the human race right to his own death. This period falls a little short of three thousand years.

    From the death of Moses to the time of Artaxerxes, who was king of Persia after Xerxes, the prophets who followed Moses have written down in thirteen books the things that were done in their days. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and principles of life for human beings. From Artaxerxes to our own time a detailed record has been made, [he refers here to the books of the Maccabees, etc] but this has not been thought worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because there has not been since then the exact succession of prophets.     [1]

The Jews rejected the books of the Apocrypha because they were written long after Divine inspiration was agreed to have ceased – and, as we have just seen, this was the exact qualification that Josephus accepted. Like the New Testament Christians, he understood that the sole defining feature of Scripture was Divine inspiration – a special gift that was bestowed upon the ministers of God’s Word at specific times, for specific reasons.

    Objection #6:

    If they reject the authority of the Church, Protestants are left with no legitimate basis on which they might accept the New Testament Canon.

Here we must allow the science of textual criticism (the same tool that Bible scholars have employed for centuries) to be our guide. We would not be new in doing so – Augustine had already arrived at his own Canon by the careful use of textual criticism. Let us read an early example of his work:

    Now, if any one finds a difficulty in the circumstance that this passage is not found in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah, and thinks that damage is thus done to the veracity of the evangelist, let him first take notice of the fact that this ascription of the passage to Jeremiah is not contained in all the codices of the Gospels, and that some of them state simply that it was spoken “by the prophet.” It is possible, therefore, to affirm that those codices deserve rather to be followed which do not contain the name of Jeremiah. For these words were certainly spoken by a prophet, only that prophet was Zechariah. In this way the supposition is, that those codices are faulty which contain the name of Jeremiah, because they ought either to have given the name of Zechariah or to have mentioned no name at all, as is the case with a certain copy, merely stating that it was spoken “by the prophet, saying,” which prophet would assuredly be understood to be Zechariah.

    However, let others adopt this method of defence, if they are so minded. For my part, I am not satisfied with it; and the reason is, that a majority of codices contain the name of Jeremiah, and that those critics who have studied the Gospel with more than usual care in the Greek copies, report that they have found it stand so in the more ancient Greek exemplars. I look also to this further consideration, namely, that there was no reason why this name should have been added [subsequently to the true text], and a corruption thus created; whereas there was certainly an intelligible reason for erasing the name from so many of the codices.
    For venturesome inexperience might readily have done that, when perplexed with the problem presented by the fact that this passage could not be found in Jeremiah.     [2]

Furthermore, historical evidence shows that the 27 books of the NT were written during the 1st Century AD. Since the authors of these books were the earliest Christians (and therefore possessed a direct link to Jesus himself) it would be most unwise of us to include later books (such as the Gospel of Thomas) into the NT canon because we cannot be sure that they are reliable.

A close examination of the 27 books of the NT will reveal that they share a social, ideological and textual relationship. The various authors are known to each other – they speak about each other, and sometimes to each other. They share similar histories; they share personal details; they share doctrines; they share fellowship. Their testimonies match; their writings frequently cross-reference one another. They are clearly contemporaries. Indeed, the general consensus of textual critics is that the New Testament writings (as with the Old) are wholly reliable.

Thus:

    The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.

When we look at the earliest extra-Biblical document (the Didache) we find that it consists largely of various passages which have simply been lifted straight from the books of the NT Canon. It does not reference its sources – but it doesn’t alter them very much, either. It makes deliberate use of passages that would have been well known to the early Christians. It recognises the authority of its sources by using them to compile a comprehensive statement of doctrine and practice.

Let’s read a few excerpts from the Didache, and see if we can recognise some of the language:

  • Didache 1:2.
    The way of life is this. First of all, thou shalt love the God that made thee; secondly, Thy neighbour as thyself. And all things whatsoever thou wouldst not have befall thyself, neither do thou unto another.     [4]

  • Didache 1:3-4.
    Now of these words the doctrine is this. Bless them that curse you, and pray for your enemies and fast for them that persecute you; for what thank is it, if ye love them that love you? Do not even the Gentiles the same? But if ye love them that hate you, ye shall not have an enemy.
    Abstain thou from fleshly and bodily lusts. If any man give thee a blow on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also, and thou shalt be perfect; If a man impress thee to go with him one mile, go with him twain; if a man take away thy cloak, give him thy coat also; if a man take away from thee that which is thy own, ask it not back, for neither art thou able.     [5]
  • Didache 3:7.
    But be meek, since the meek shall inherit the earth.     [6]
  • Didache 3:10.
    The accidents that befall thee thou shalt receive as good, knowing that nothing is done without God.     [7]
  • Didache 5:1-2.
    But the way of death is this. First of all, it is evil and full of a curse; murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts, idolatries, magical arts, witchcrafts, plunderings, false witnessings, hypocrisies, doubleness of heart, treachery, pride, malice, stubbornness, covetousness, foul speaking, jealousy, boldness, exaltation, boastfulness; persecutors of good men, hating truth, loving a lie, not perceiving the reward of righteousness, not cleaving to the good nor to righteous judgment, wakeful not for that which is good but for that which is evil-from whom gentleness and forbearance stand aloof; loving vain things, pursuing a recompense, not pitying the poor man, not toiling for him that is oppressed with toil, not recognizing Him that made them, murderers of children, corrupters of the creatures of God, turning away from him that is in want, oppressing him that is afflicted, advocates of the wealthy, unjust judges of the poor, altogether sinful. May ye be delivered, my children, from all these things.     [8]
  • Didache 5:3.
    But concerning eating, bear that which thou art able; yet abstain by all means from meat sacrificed to idols; for it is the worship of dead gods.     [9]
  • Didache 8:2.
    Neither pray ye as the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, thus pray ye: Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name; Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done, as in heaven, so also on earth; give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our debt, as we forgive our debtors; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever and ever.     [10]
  • Didache 11:1-2.
    Whosoever therefore shall come and teach you all these things that have been said before, receive him;
    but if the teacher himself be perverted and teach a different doctrine to the destruction thereof, hear him not; but if to the increase of righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord.     [11]

  • Didache 12:3-4.
    But if he wishes to settle with you, being a craftsman, let him work for and eat his bread.
    But if he has no craft, according to your wisdom provide how he shall live as a Christian among you, but not in idleness.     [12]

  • Didache 15:1.
    Appoint for yourselves therefore bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are meek and not lovers of money, and true and approved; for unto you they also perform the service of the prophets and teachers.     [13]
  • Didache 16:3.
    For in the last days the false prophets and corrupters shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall be turned into hate.     [14]

    Didache 14:2.
    And let no man, having his dispute with his fellow, join your assembly until they have been reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled. [15]

    Didache 16:4.
    For as lawlessness increaseth, they shall hate one another and shall persecute and betray. And then the world-deceiver shall appear as a son of God; and shall work signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands; and he shall do unholy things, which have never been since the world began. [16]
  • Didache 16:6.
    And then shall the signs of the truth appear; first a sign of a rift in the heaven, then a sign of a voice of a trumpet, and thirdly a resurrection of the dead;

  • Didache 16:8.
    Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven. [17]



    Objection #7:

    The books of the Apocrypha appear in the Alexandrian Septuagint, thereby proving that the Jews considered them to be inspired.

Firstly, the Alexandrian Septuagint is of Christian origin, not Jewish. Secondly, the Alexandrian Septuagint was compiled in the 4th Century AD. It is therefore impossible for Jesus and his followers to accept a Canon that did not emerge until at least three centuries after the time in which they lived.

    Objection #8:

    The apostles approved the use of tradition as a legitimate source of doctrine and practice in the Church. This undermines the alleged authority of Sola Scriptura, and vindicates the Roman Catholic authority of Sacred Tradition.

The Christian “tradition” to which the New Testament refers, is that which was instituted by Christ himself. This “tradition” is always contrasted against “the traditions of men.”

Thus:

    I Corinthians 11:1-2, 25ff.
    Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
    Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances [“traditions”; see KJV margin], as I delivered them to you.

    […]

    For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you… etc.

The early Christian “tradition” (so-called) was therefore (a) delivered by Christ himself, and (b) immutable, unlike the steadily-evolving “traditions of men” which were formulated in the first three centuries of the post-Apostolic era.

    Objection #9:

    It is only by virtue of Church tradition that the full teachings of Christ have been preserved. We know that mere Scripture alone does not contain everything that Jesus delivered to his followers.

    Thus:
  • John 20:30.
    Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book.

  • John 21:25.
    There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

Neither of these verses makes any reference to “tradition.” They merely refer to other things that Jesus did – not to other teachings that he delivered. Any appeal to these verses must necessarily include a detailed description of the alleged “traditions” contained within them. If the Church cannot tell us what they might be, her argument collapses immediately.

    Objection #10:

    In the Catholic Church, Paul’s preaching (oral teachings) would fall under the designation of “oral tradition.” This confirms both the legitimacy of tradition per se, and oral tradition in particular.

But Paul’s oral teachings – unlike the oral teachings of the men who led the post-1st Century Church – were not originally his own; they were Christ’s! Furthermore, those same oral teachings were always committed to parchment, not simply passed down through word of mouth (a most subjective and unreliable mode of transmission.) They were also recorded by other writers, appearing in the four Gospels, the book of Acts, and the General Epistles. The very concept of “tradition” (as defined by the Catholic Church) is unequivocally condemned by the apostles themselves. It is called “the tradition of men”; i.e. that which was instigated by uninspired members of the Christian community, who soon fell away from the original faith (the Gospel message as delivered by Christ and his disciples.)

With this in mind, the apostle Paul takes care to distinguish between that which he has been inspired to write (“I have received of the Lord that which I delivered unto you…”) and that which constitutes his own personal judgement (“I write this by permission, and not by commandment…”) He reassures his audience that his own personal views are not to be accepted on the same footing as (a) his Divinely inspired work, or (b) the authority of Jesus. (See I Corinthians 5:5-6, 35, 39-40 for an example.) The apostles never place any weight on “oral tradition.” They draw their arguments from (a) the inspiration of God, and (b) the writings (as opposed to “oral traditions”) of other apostles.

    Objection #11:

    The Canon of Scripture ceased to be disputed after the official declaration of Pope Damasus – in fact, no objections were raised until the Protestant Reformation. The Council of Trent (1,200 years later) did not establish the official Catholic Canon, but merely reaffirmed the original decision.

The declaration of Damasus was merely one of several declarations by various authorities before the Council of Trent. The Catholic Church claims that her leaders held three major Councils to determine the Canon of Scripture. (Council of Rome, AD 382; Council of Hippo, 393; Council of Carthage, 397.)

This assertion is problematic for several reasons:

  • The Council of Hippo disagreed with the Council of Carthage, varying in its definition of books of Esdras.

  • The legitimacy of the Council of Rome (at which Pope Gelasius is said to have delivered an official ruling on the Canon) is hotly debated by theologians and historians alike.

  • This same “official ruling” is occasionally attributed to Pope Damasus. (But why – if it was an official ruling – is there so little consensus with regard to its origin?)
  • There is evidence that the Council of Rome did not actually take place, but was merely “reconstructed” by the Catholic Church, following a sympathetic (one might say “anachronistic”) interpretation of Gelasius’ letters to his bishops. Indeed, the late F. F. Bruce (who, in his day, was internationally recognised as peerless expert in the field of textual criticism) presents a masterful synopsis:

    What is commonly called the Gelasian decree on books which are to be received and not received takes its name from Pope Gelasius (492-496). It gives a list of biblical books as they appeared in the Vulgate, with the Apocrypha interspersed among the others. In some manuscripts, indeed, it is attributed to Pope Damasus, as though it had been promulgated by him at the Council of Rome in 382. But actually it appears to have been a private compilation drawn up somewhere in Italy in the early sixth century. [18]

    (Emphasis mine.)

We must also remember that even before the Protestant Reformation, Cardinal Cajetan had acknowledged the widespread rejection of the Apocrypha as Divinely inspired. Thus, while it is true that the Reformation certainly widened the scope of the debate, it was by no means the original catalyst.




With Regard to Papal Authority:

    Objection #1:

    Objection 1: Papal authority was established and accepted from the earliest days of the Church. According to Tertullian’s De Praescript (AD 199), Clement of Rome was ordained Bishop of Rome by St. Peter himself. This historical fact is confirmed by the Epistle of Clement to Corinth, dated to 96 AD (a date that rivals that of the Book of Revelation itself.)

Firstly, the “Letter of Clement” was merely attributed to him by tradition. There is no proof that it was ever written by Clement of Rome. It is unsigned; its author is unknown. There is nothing in it which even remotely hints that its writer was a “pope.” Secondly, the office of the pope (so-called) is nothing more than the bishopric of Rome. Since Rome is considered by Catholics to be the pre-eminent church, then the bishop of Rome is the pre-eminent bishop. Again, this does not give us a “pope.” Thirdly, Scripture says nothing whatsoever about a “bishop” who is also “head of the Church”, and early Christian history is utterly silent on the topic. Fourthly, there is nothing in Scripture which might indicate that the “Bishop of Rome” has primacy of authority.

Indeed, Paul uses the words “bishop” and “elder” interchangeably, such as in Acts 20, where he calls for the “elders” of the ecclesias in verse 17 but later calls them “bishops” (or “overseers”; the Greek word is episkopos) in verse 28. Peter does the same in the first four verses of I Peter 5.

Moving past the Bible (which contains most of the 1st Century writings of the early Church) and getting into the 2nd Century, we see that confusion arises from the differing practices of the apostles Paul, Peter and John. In the churches where John had appointed elders, only one of the elders was known as the “bishop.” In Paul and Peter’s churches, all of the elders were “bishops/overseers.” No single elder was head over the others.

This can be further proved by reference to the New Testament writings, in which John addresses the issue of one man issuing decrees (III John 9-10), while Peter and Paul never mention any individual leader. Since the church in Rome was acknowledged (at least, by Church tradition) to have been formed by Peter and Paul, it should not surprise us that the author of the Letter of Clement (whoever he may be) speaks of plural leadership in the same way that Paul and Peter had done:

    And thus preaching through countries and cities, [the apostles appointed the first-fruits, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith. [19]

Notice that there is no mention of “elders”, while “bishops” are referred to in the plural. This is because the author views bishopric and eldership as one and the same office; it would therefore be redundant to mention them twice. He makes this even more obvious two paragraphs later:

    For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate office of the bishop those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters elders who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. [21]

Here he uses the terms “bishop” and “elder” interchangeably. Again, this is no surprise to the unbiased student of history, because Paul and Peter use the terms interchangeably, and Paul (if not Peter as well) laid the foundations of the ecclesia in Rome. It is only a surprise to the Roman Catholic, whose dogma requires that there be a singular bishop in Clement’s time. There was in fact no single bishop who could be a pope in Clement’s time, and the “Letter of Clement” (so-called) is not the only evidence that this was so. Ignatius (living around the same time) never mentions a bishop of Rome, and neither does Polycarp.

There are numerous other pieces of evidence that could be mentioned, most of them falling under the general topic of a universal second century silence on the matter of a pope. Justin Martyr, for example, wrote a long letter to the emperor of Rome seeking to inform him of the general nature of the Christian faith, so that Christians might be fairly tried in Roman courts. Justin goes into great detail about the faith, describing even Sunday meetings and baptism step by step, yet he never mentions a pope, who supposedly dwelled in the same city as both the emperor and Justin himself.

There is an even earlier anonymous letter (again, describing Christianity in a general way) from the region of Rome to a Roman official, but it, too, never mentions a pope, or even a “chief bishop”. It was Constantine who first introduced the concept of a mortal man as head of the Church, and for centuries afterwards, the Emperors who followed assumed this role as a matter of course. Only much later was the seat of ecclesiastical power transferred to a bishop.

    Objection #2:

    Ignatius (writing in the early 2nd Century AD) confirms that the Christian community already accepted the primacy of the Pope as the representative of Christ on Earth.

    Thus:

    "Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter.] Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

This merely refers to the role of bishops in general - not to a single bishop who exercised primacy of authority over the entire church. Notice also, that Ignatius makes no mention of a “head bishop.” He writes “wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”, as opposed to the modern Catholic view: “Wherever the Pope is, there is the Catholic Church.” This reaffirms that Ignatius saw Christ as the head of the Church; he has no knowledge - or even conception - of a “pope.” In fact, no such office existed.

In the words of a leading Protestant apologist:

    First and foremost, there is tremendous confusion concerning the early ‘lists’ of the bishops of Rome, and for good reason. Different sources give different renderings. Why? As simple as it may sound, the reason is easily discovered: no one really cared for the first century of the history of the church at Rome.

    All the lists come from at the earliest many decades later, and show a concern that did not arise until the Church as a whole began struggling with heresy and began formulating concepts of authority to use against heretics. But in those first decades, even into the middle of the second century, no one was particularly concerned about who the bishop of Rome was. Why? Because no one had the concepts that Rome now presents as ‘ancient.’ No one thought the bishop of any one church was above any other, or that the bishop of Rome was somehow invested with any particular authority.     [22]

(Emphasis mine.)

    Objection #3:

    The evidence of history – when taken as a whole – confirms the primacy of the Pope as head of the Church, from the earliest days of the Apostolic succession.

The evidence of history – when taken as a whole – confirms no such thing.

Observe the following summary from a contemporary historian:

    On the point – the role of the Papacy in the conversion of Europe – we need some background for, in the early Church prior to Toleration in AD 313, there had been no suggestion that the Bishop of Rome exercised any significant influence, much less authority, outside his own domain. However, when Constantine’s Edict of Toleration (AD 313) granted freedom of belief and worship to Christians, a completely new situation developed which necessitated a radical change in Church policy. For, from that time on, the emperors were Christians; and increasingly, they tended to rule the Church as a kind of Department of State, as if they – rather than thee bishops – were the successors of St Peter and the Apostles.

    So, when doctrinal disputes arose among Christians (for example the controversy over the divinity of Christ), it was the Emperor Constantine, not the Bishop of Rome, who called the first “Ecumenical” Council of Christian bishops (a kind of Christian Summit) at Nicaea in AD 325 – oikumene being the Greek word for the “household” of the Church. Among the two hundred bishops who attended, there were only two priests (not even a single bishop) from Rome or its environs, and they played only a minor part in the proceedings. The same when a later Emperor, Theodosius, called a second Christian Summit (the First Council of Constantinople) in AD 381 – without reference to Rome at all! In effect, the Emperor was now behaving as if he were the Head of the Church – an emperor, moreover, who (as we have seen) had been forced to do public penance by St Ambrose after slaughtering 7,000 innocent people after one of his officers had been assassinated.

    This was too much. The following year, Damasus, Bishop of Rome, called a rival Council in Rome; and his successor, Siricius, formulated the first public proclamation of the right and duty of the Bishop of Rome to rule over thee whole of Christendom: “We (the Successors of Peter) carry on our shoulders the burdens of all who are weighed down. Indeed, in Our person the blessed Apostle Peter himself carries these burdens – he who regards us as the heir to his administration… No priest of the Lord is free to ignore the decision of the Apostolic See.”

    Gradually, over the next century or so, as the tension increased between the Caesar or Emperor in the East and the Pope or Bishop of Rome in the West, “the Successors of Peter” became ever more adamant in their insistence that they, rather than the eastern emperors, should be the arbiters of all Church affairs. So, in the mid 5th Century, we find Pope Leo I (440-461) calling himself “the Vicar of Peter” – that is, the one who acts in the place of Peter. Not the “Vicar of Christ” – the modern title which gained ascendancy only from the 11th Century onwards – but “the Vicar of Peter” and “the heir to his administration.”

    By the end of the 5th Century, still under pressure from the Emperor in Constantinople, a further step was taken in this direction when Pope Gelasius (492-496) formulated the crucial concept of “separate Orders.” In the political or temporal order, he argued, the Emperor holds supreme and universal authority; but in the spiritual order – that is, in the administration of the Church – it is the Bishop of Rome who, as Vicar of St Peter, holds supreme and universal authority. The foundation of all future claims to the Papacy – and the basis of a good deal of the future politics of Church and State – is already inherent in this crucial distinction.

    In passing, it is worth nothing that, in a sense, it was only natural that the Church should begin to think in such universal terms. For the Roman Empire into which Christianity had been born was a world-wide empire; and the Romans themselves had a gift for government far surpassing that of the more intellectual but more factious and self-destructive Greeks, whose small, independent City-States had fought interminably among themselves all through Greek history.

    So, “not unnaturally, with Christianity spreading all through the Roman Empire, Christians began to think of the Church as a kind of spiritual Empire; and given the unique role of Peter, and the natural Roman gift for government, it was on the cards that the successors of Peter would eventually become the spiritual Emperors of the universal Church, which we call “Christendom” (literally, “the dominion of Christ.”)

    Especially, in the persistent climate of controversy that marked those early centuries – notably, the continuing Arian assertion that, while Christ was adopted as Son of God at his baptism, he was not born God, nor was he identical with the Creator. So when, in the midst of one such controversy (in 451), with the Church split into two rival factions, the gifted Pope Leo I spoke out authoritatively saying, “this is the doctrine of the Church” – his words having the authoritative tone of a Roman decree, backed by his claim to be the Successor of St Peter – the Bishop of Rome became increasingly regarded as the guardian of orthodoxy throughout much of Christendom.

    By this time – by force of circumstance, rather than choice or planning – the Bishop of Rome had also become a political ruler, not just head of the Church in Rome. For when the Emperor Constantine retired to Constantinople, leaving the city of Rome as a backwater, who else would now rule and defend the city, if not the Bishop of Rome? In the words of Professor Nilsson in his history of Imperial Rome; “as the Emperor (from the early 300’s) seldom visited Rome, the bishop had become the foremost man in the city.”

    When, for example, Attila and his Huns stormed into Italy in 451, who would o out to negotiate with him? Who would – and did – save the city of Rome from the kind of rape and plunder that befell so many other cities throughout the Empire? Who, if not the Bishop of Rome, the leading citizen in the city? And, in fact, it was this same Pope Leo who confronted Attila – thereby (as the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church points out) “increasing… Papal prestige… in the political sphere… by persuading the Huns to withdraw beyond the Danube (451), and securing concessions when the Vandals took Rome in 452.” This political role of the bishops of Rome would increase tenfold a few centuries later when, in the mid-700’s, the Popes became political rulers of territories stretching north-east from Rome to the environs of Ravenna – these territories henceforth being known as the “Papal States.”

    This development stemmed from a troublesome relationship between the Papacy and the Lombards – yet another Germanic tribe, who appear to have been Christians by the time of their arrival in 568, but remained Arians till the mid 7th Century. From the outset, they proceeded to occupy most of northern and central Italy, taking Ravenna, the capital of the Christian (though Arian), kingdom of the Ostrogoths in 571 and, after besieging Rome that same year, imposing a heavy tribute on the people of Rome and its environs in token of subjection. This new and hazardous situation eventually prompted the Pope to appeal for help – no longer to the Eastern emperor who was by then preoccupied with the expansion of Islam, but to Charlemagne’s father, Pippin II, ruler of the Franks.

    Pippin agreed to intervene and agreed, moreover, to hand over extensive Lombard territories to the Pope – including the Ducy of Benevento, south of Rome, the Duchy of Spoleto (around Assisi) to the north-east, and even the former Byzantine and subsequently Gothic territories north and south of Ravenna. Two successive Frankish campaigns followed –the first in 754, and the second in 756 (after Rome had been besieged by the Lombards for eight weeks) – the outcome being the birth of the Papal States which would remain intact until the Unification of Italy in 1870. And, as Barraclough points out in The Medieval Papacy, this was a new and momentous development, for “at no time in the whole preceding history of the papacy had there been any suggestion that the bishop of Rome should exercise temporal power, or rule as a king over a territorial state.”

    By the time of the Lombard campaigns in the mid 700’s, another political factor was adding further prestige to the Papacy – in spiritual rather than political terms. For, with the rapid expansion of Islam, all through the Middle East and right across North Africa in the century following Mohammed’s death in 634, all the other “Apostolic Sees” (Jerusalem, Antioch and Ephesus), which had originally evangelized by one or other of the apostles, were now in Islamic hands; and this meant that the only surviving Apostolic See in Christendom was Rome. Hence, Rome’s present claim to the title, “The Apostolic See.”

    Almost by chance, therefore, from the late 700’s, not only did the popes claim spiritual authority over the whole of Christendom as “Successors of Peter” and bishop of the one and only surviving “Apostolic See”, but they were recognized as the political overlords of about one-fifth of Italy also – this new status of the Papacy being confirmed in the papal coronation of Charlemagne in the year 800.

    […]

    One of the clearest indications of the new role of the Papacy can be seen in the fact that, before the early 1100’s, not a single General or “Ecumenical” Council of the Church had been summoned by a pope or even held in the capital West: from the early 12th Century onwards, however, there would be frequent Councils; all would be held in the West; and all would be summoned and directed by the pope.

    R. W. Southern supplies the details in Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages, as follows: “Between the seventh century and the early twelfth the Councils are few and, from a western point of view, insignificant. They are all held in Byzantine territory (one at Nicaea, in 787, and two in Constantinople, in 680 and 869), and there were no representatives from the West except the papal legates, who played a minor role in the proceedings. The whole picture therefore is one of western inertia and papal impotence…     [23]





Questions which Catholics Must Answer

  • Catholics claim that Silvester I was the Pope of Constantine’s era. Why, then, did the Emperor preside over the Council of Nicaea? Does this not contradict the traditional dogma of Papal primacy?

  • Where is the principle of Papal succession taught in the NT? Even if we accept Peter as the “first Pope”, where do we go from here? Who was next in line, and where are we told that a succession would take place?
  • Catholics argue that the Church can deliver an infallible interpretation of the Scriptures by virtue of (a) the apostolic succession, and (b) the gift of the Holy Spirit, which has been transmitted to the Pope and Magisterium. However, this is merely a claim – it has yet to be proved. The questions which need to be asked are: “How might this claim be proved? How can the Church demonstrate that her interpretation is necessarily superior to all others? (It may be objected ‘But we [Catholics] can prove the apostolic succession, and therefore the infallibility of interpretation naturally follows.’ But this merely presents another claim, which must also be validated – else we are left with a circular argument, which proves nothing at all.)
  • Why did the Church take so long to determine the “official canon” of the Bible?
  • Why has the Church added new doctrines and practices over the centuries?
  • Why has the Church taken so long to add these new doctrines – and what function do they play within the scope of Catholic theology?
  • On what basis does the Church accept the dogma of “Progressive Revelation”?





The Evolution of Catholic Doctrine and Practice

Here follows a list of Catholic beliefs and practices which – although believed and practiced earlier than the dates given – did not become binding on all Catholics until they were officially adopted by church councils and proclaimed by the Pope as dogmas of faith. The question we must ask ourselves is this: Does the record of history suggest that the RCC is a Spirit-guided Church, or a mutable institution of men?

(All dates are approximate.)

  • Presbyter (or elders) were first called priests by Lucian...2nd century.

  • Prayers for the dead...AD. 300.

  • The veneration of angels and dead saints and the use of images...375.

  • The Mass as a daily celebration was adopted...394.

  • The beginning of the exaltation of Mary, and the first use of the term "Mother of God" by the Council of Ephesus...431.

  • Priests began to dress different from the laity and to wear special clothes...500.

  • Extreme Unction...526.

  • The doctrine of purgatory was first established by Gregory the Great...593.

  • Prayers began to be offered to Mary, dead saints, and angels...600.

  • The first man proclaimed "Pope" (Boniface III)...610.

  • Veneration of the cross, images, and relics authorized...788.

  • Holy water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by a priest was authorized in...850.

  • Veneration of Saint Joseph...890.

  • College of cardinals begun...927.

  • Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV...995.

  • The Mass developed gradually as a sacrifice, attendance was made obligatory in...11th century.

  • The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII...1079.

  • The rosary was introduced by Peter the Hermit...1090.

  • The Inquisition of "heretics" was instituted by the Council of Verona...1184, (also legalized and promoted by the fourth Lateran Council in 1215.)
  • The sale of Indulgences...1190.

  • The seven sacraments defined by Peter Lombard...12th century.

  • The dogma of transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III ...1215.

  • Confession of sins to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III in the Lateran Council...1215.

  • The adoration of the wafer (host) decreed by Pope Honorius III ...1220.

  • The scapular invented by Simon Stock of England...1251.

  • The doctrine of purgatory proclaimed a dogma by the Council of Florence...1439.

  • Tradition is declared of equal authority with the Bible by the Council Trent...1546.

  • The Apocryphal Books were added to the Bible by the Council of Trent...1545.

  • The Immaculate Conception of Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in 1854.

  • Pope Pius IX condemns all scientific discoveries not approved by the Roman Church...1864.

  • Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals proclaimed by the First Vatican Council...1870.

  • Pius XI condemned the public schools...1930.

  • Pius XI reaffirmed the doctrine that Mary is "The Mother of God" ...1931.

  • The dogma of the Assumption (8) of the Virgin Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius XII...1950.

  • Mary proclaimed the Mother of the Church by Pope Paul VI...1965. [24]




___________________________

Bibliography:

[1] Josephus (AD 90), Versus Apion.

[2] The passage is from Augustine’s De Consensus Evangelistarum (“The Harmony of the Gospels”) in which he analyses Matthew 27:9-10. ("Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one whose price had been set by the sons of Israel; and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me.”

[3] Kenyon, Frederic (1940), The Bible and Archaeology.

[4] This is the “Golden Rule”, as spoken by Jesus on several occasions. Jesus himself was quoting the 10 Commandments.

[5] Two direct quotes from the Sermon on the Mount. (They appear in Matthew 5.)

[6] Taken from the Sermon on the Mount. (It appears in Matthew 5.)

[7] A quote from the book of Ecclesiastes. (See also John 9, where Jesus elaborates on this theme.)

[8] Taken from Romans 1 & I Timothy 1, confirming the authority of the Pauline epistles.

[9] Taken from I Corinthians 8, reaffirming the decision of the apostles at the Jerusalem Conference in Acts 15.

[10 A direct quote from the Sermon on the Mount. (It appears in Matthew 6.)

[11] A paraphrase of Paul’s warnings in (a) Galatians 1, and (b) the epistles to Timothy.

[12] Taken from II Thessalonians 3:9-13.

[13] Taken from I Timothy 3:1-10.

[14] Paraphrases from Matthew 17:15 & Matthew 24:23-24.

[15 A paraphrase of Matthew 5:23-24.

[16] Paraphrases from Matthew 24:23-24, II Timothy 3:1, 13, & II Thessalonians 2:3-10.

[17] Verses 6 & 8 consist of paraphrases from I Corinthians 15, Matthew 24:30-31, Mark 13:26-28, & I Thessalonians 4:15-16.

[18] Bruce, F.F. (1988), The Canon of Scripture.

[19] I Clement, 42.

[20] Ibid., 44.

[21] Letter to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (AD 110.)

[22] White, James (2002), How Reliable is Roman Catholic History?, an online article at White’s own Website. (See here.)

[23] Guthridge, Ian (1999), The Rise and Decline of the Christian Empire, pp. 77-80, 126.

[24] This list has been paraphrased from Lorraine Boettner's Roman Catholicism (1962), pages 7-8.

    Conversations with Catholics - Part I

The Catholic's responses are in quotation boxes.
QUOTE
By my review of Church history, Sola Scriptura was invented by Luther in the 1500s.


As a doctrine? Certainly. As an epistemological principle? Not at all - as you go on to demonstrate. The Sadducees were Sola Scriptura, which means that Luther wasn't inventing anything new at all. The only difference between Luther and the Sadducees is that he saw Sola Scriptura as a doctrine, while they saw it as an epistemological principle.
QUOTE
Let's compare the unity of the ancient Churches prior to the 1500s (Catholic, Orthodox, Assyrian, Coptic), to the unity of Sola Scripturist of the post-Reformation period.


Hmmm... the Great Schism of 1054... Arianism... Iconoclasm... various theological controversies in which bishops excommunicated each other... violent clashes... murders... assassinations...

Yes, that all sounds very "unified", doesn't it?

QUOTE
One out of every six people on the earth professes to the Catholic faith. It is not only the largest Christian denomination in the world, it is also larger than any other religious body of any kind.


Irrelevant. If size was any indication of truth, we'd all be Buddhists.
QUOTE
It would be very difficult for the average Christian to name the difference between the Assyrian (Nestorian) Church and the Catholic Church, even after 1500 years of separation.


Really? The last time I checked, Nestorianism was still a heresy, and so was Monophysitism.
QUOTE
Does this not testify to the orthodoxy of both Churches with regard to what they themselves were handed as apostolic tradition?


No.
QUOTE
I think it does.


Then you must have a very strange definition of "unity."
QUOTE
On the contrary, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all believed Mary to be the Mother of God. They also believed in Mary's perpetual virginity.

This is no concern of mine.
QUOTE
Scripture speaks of a Church built upon a rock, regardless what your interpretation of what that rock is, a rock is a firm foundation which is difficult to move. Sola Scriptura is a foundation of sand which cannot bring about the unity which our Savior prayed for.


On the contrary, human error is the heart of all schism, and even your Church is not immune to it.
QUOTE
I believe Sacred Scripture indicates that Jesus and the Apostles were not Sola Scripturists.


...and I agree with you. Of course they weren't - they had the power of the Holy Spirit, and Divine authority! (You don't need Sola Scriptura when you've already got Divine inspiration. That's the whole point.)

But you have raised certain points in connexion with the books of the Apocrypha, and that is a topic which definitely requires attention...
QUOTE
In support of tradition as a basis for doctrine and practice, here are some examples of traditions in the NT, not found in the OT:

1) Feast of Dedication (Jn 10:22-23) is nowhere found in the Protestant Old Testament-- this is, however, in the Catholic Old Testament book 2 Maccabees.


Since there is no evidence to suggest that Jesus and the apostles kept the Feast of Dedication (which appears to have been little more than a public holiday), I don't see how this can be advanced in support of your argument. And in any case, it's not doctrinal.
QUOTE
2) The prophecy "He shall be called a Nazorean" (Matt 2:23) is nowhere found in the OT.


I believe that B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament gives a fair summary of the evidence here:

    That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets.
    Not by one prophet, but the summing up of a number of prophecies. No prophet had declared in express terms that he should be called a Nazarene. They, however, did apply to Christ the term Nezer, from which Nazareth is derived; the Nazarites, of whom Samson was one, were typical of Christ; the meanness and contempt in which Nazareth was held was itself a prophecy of one who "was despised and rejected." See Isa_11:1; Jer_23:5; Jer_33:15; Zec_3:8; Zec_6:12.

Collective references to OT prophecies are by no means uncommon in the NT. (And of course, it's impossible to ignore the clear typological connexion with Samson...)
QUOTE
3) The authority symbol of the Chair of Moses is nowhere found in the OT (Matt 23:2).

It's a mere figure of speech. To "sit in Moses' seat" simply means "to perform his role as a leader of the nation." It does not refer to a specific "authority symbol", like the Catholic Church's "Chair of Peter." So the fact that this figure of speech does not occur in the OT, is irrelevant.

And of course, it's not doctrinal, so...
QUOTE
4) The rock that followed the Israelites (1 Cor 10:4) is nowhere described in the OT.


Yes it is. This is a reference to the rock which Moses spoke to, and the rock which he smote. The two rocks represented Christ. This entire passage is figurative, not literal. (Hence the use of the expressions "[spiritual meat... spiritual drink... the spiritual rock...")

Thus, from B. W. Johnson again:

    And did all eat the same spiritual meat.
    The manna (Exo_16:15), called "spiritual," because supernaturally supplied, and because a type of the spiritual bread of the Christian.

    Did all drink the same spiritual drink.
    The water supernaturally supplied (Exo_17:6; Num_20:11) called "spiritual," for the same reason.

    That spiritual Rock that followed them.
    The waters at Rephidim and Kadesh gushed from a rock. The rock did not itself supply them, but the Power behind, the "spiritual Rock," even Christ. The rock of Rephidim did not follow them, but the "spiritual Rock" did, and supplied their necessities whenever they were in need. As the rock of Rephidim became a fountain, so Christ is the fountain of living waters to the world.

I would also recommend that you take a little time to read Jesus' conversation with the woman at Jacob's Well.
QUOTE
5) The names of the court magicians given by Paul (2 Tim 3:8). These names are nowhere found in the OT.

6) The encounter between St. Michael vs. the Devil (Jude 9) is nowhere found in the OT.


None of this is doctrinal, so it doesn't concern me in the slightetst - nor does it have any impact on my argument.
QUOTE
7) Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament


No it doesn't. The OT is not even mentioned.

What it actually says, is this:

    Hebrews 11:1-2.
    Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
    For by it the elders obtained a good report.

Moving right along...
QUOTE
and in the Old Testament "Women received their dead by resurrection.


That's in the Old Testament for sure.
QUOTE
Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (Heb. 11:35). However, you cannot find this in the Protestant Old Testament—this is, however, in the Catholic Old Testament book 2 Maccabees.


I do not deny that certain historical facts can be found in the books of the Maccabees. I merely deny that they are inspired. Moreover, there is absolutely nothing doctrinal about Paul's exhortation here, so I don't see how it can be used against the principle of Sola Scriptura.
QUOTE
8) In Acts 20:35, Paul cites a saying of Jesus which is nowhere else in the Bible. If Paul believed he was restricted to the written Word of God as his sole rule of faith, then where did he learn of this saying of Christ? Perhaps it was revealed to him directly? Perhaps it was oral tradition? Whatever it was, it certainly was not a “Bible Alone” teaching.


Agreed! As one who had received the privilege of Divine inspiration, Paul had no need of Sola Scriptura.

QUOTE
The Pharisees (St. Paul used to be one) were not Sola Scripturist.


Agreed! And Jesus condemned them for subscribing to the "traditions of men"!
QUOTE
The Sadducees were.


Agreed! (Too bad they messed it up.)
QUOTE
The Pharisees held to the teachings of scripture and oral tradition.


...traditions which Jesus vigorously condemned in no uncertain terms!
QUOTE
Who did Jesus say held the “Chair of Moses” in Matt 23:2? The Pharisees … the group which held to scripture and tradition were the rightful authority which the disciples were told to follow.


Exactly. And because they abused this authority by their false teaching and man-made traditions, they received the greater condemnation.
QUOTE
Jesus told his disciples to do as the Pharisees told them, but not to do what they did, because they failed to practice what they preached. So, does Jesus say that their “teachings” went astray or their behavior? It was their behavior.

Ref: http://religion-cults.com/Judaism/brans-.htm


Ah, you need to read a little further, my friend...

    Matthew 16:6-12.
    Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
    And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
    Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?
    Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
    Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
    How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
    Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

See also:

    John 9:39-41.
    And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
    And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words and said unto him, Are we blind also?
    Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

Hardly a ringing endorsement, is it?
QUOTE
Finally, you’ll have to show me where God abandoned the Jews so that they had to go it alone without Divine inspiration.


The era of the Maccabees. That is the very period in which the Jews themselves agreed that inspiration and prophetic utterance had ceased - which in turn, is why they rejected the Apocrypha as uninspired.

Read Josephus. You'll see that I'm right.
QUOTE
I believe the history of Judaism is filled with Prophets.


Well, that's simply not true, unfortunately.
QUOTE
That is precisely why the Hebrew Bible continued to grow with history.


The Hebrew Bible only "continued to grow with history" while inspiration was available. It did not grow during the time of the Maccabees. The Jews freely affirm this themselves.
QUOTE
The Pharisees allowed their scripture to include oral tradition.


...which really got them into hot water when Jesus came along!

Thus:

    Matthew 15:1-2.
    Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
    Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

Of course, the simple answer to the Pharisees' question is that the disciples "transgressed the tradition of the elders" because "the tradition of the elders" was a load of hogwash, as Jesus goes on to demonstrate:

    Matthew 15:3-9.
    But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
    For God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
    But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
    And honor not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
    Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,
    This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
    But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

That's what Jesus thought of the Pharisees!

QUOTE
This upset the Sadducees to no end, as they adhered only to the first 5 books … the Torah, as do the Samaritans to this day.

Well, you can't blame them for trying!
QUOTE
Our Savior gives us a big hint of what he thinks of Sola Scriptura in Matt 23:2. The rightful authority (Chair of Moses) did not belong not to the Sadducees (Sola Scripturists), but to the Pharisees (scripture + tradition).


Actually, Jesus doesn't say "It doesn't belong to the Sadducees", nor does he claim that "Scripture + tradition" is the approved method of keeping God's commandments. You're reading all of this into the text. What he does say, is that the Pharisees (as the spiritual leaders of the people) are responsible for teaching the people. (Which they were.) But does this automatically mean that the people must accept everything that they were told? By no means!

Quite apart from Jesus' stinging rebuke in Matthew 15, we have his lengthy polemic in Matthew 23 -

    Matthew 23:1-4.
    Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
    Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
    All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
    For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
    But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

Here we see that the extra-Biblical traditions are soundly condemned.

What else does Jesus have to say...?

    Matthew 23:13-16.
    ut woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
    Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
    Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
    Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
    Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

This is the language of John 9 - and it's not complimentary!

But it goes on...

    Matthew 23:23-33.
    Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
    Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
    Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
    Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
    Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
    Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
    Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous,
    And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
    Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
    Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
    Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

And this is your idea of an argument in their favour...?

QUOTE
With St. Paul’s influence (a former Pharisee) can there be no doubt as to why St. Paul also taught the importance to tradition, both written and oral?


Yes. Just ask Jesus. Just look at the writings of Paul. Just look at the example of the Bereans.
QUOTE
Today we have the Chair of Peter which holds fast to apostolic tradition, both written and oral.


...which Jesus openly condemns.
QUOTE
Like Matt 23:2, we should adhere to the teachings of the Chair of Peter, even if the actions of these Christians show how very impeccable they really are.



Nonsense. The "Chair of Peter" is nothing more than another manmade tradition.

    Conversations with Catholics - Part II

The Catholic's responses are in quotation boxes.
QUOTE
So, why didn’t the Apostles expound:

One, the canon of Scripture


Because (a) there was no need to determine the OT Canon, since this had already been determined, and (b) the NT Canon could not possibly be determined during their own lifetime, since they all wrote and died at different times. It was, necessarily, a post-1st Century decision.

QUOTE
and two, Sola Scriptura?


Because (a) Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine, but an epistemological foundation, and (b) the 1st Century Christians had no need of Sola Scriptura, since they (unlike us) had the benefit of Christ teaching them on a daily basis, and (after his ascension) the Holy Spirit to guide them.
QUOTE
Now, you say you are a strict Cessationist, and from what I have gleaned of such, that holds that the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Church ended with the canonization of Scripture.


No, I wouldn’t go so far as that. I believe that only the apostles were capable of passing on the Holy Spirit (see Acts 8 for an example), and that those who had received it from them, did not possess this ability. Thus, the guidance of the Holy Spirit ended with the death of the last man who possessed it (whoever he may have been.)

I Corinthians 13 is the standard chapter for those who believe that the formation of the NT Canon (not the OT, for this was already in place) marked the cessation of the Holy Spirit gifts. I don’t believe that this is a necessary deduction, since Paul refers only to the maturity of the Christian body as a whole. Christ had promised that the Holy Spirit would “lead you into all truth”, and once this was done, there was no more need for the presence of the Holy Spirit. (Notice also that this requires a change of emphasis from Spirit-guided men, to the letters of the apostles, since their writings would necessarily become the touchstone of orthodoxy. That is why Peter and Paul take great pains to assure their readers that their letters are inspired by God Himself.)

I believe that by the end of the 1st Century AD, the Church had everything it needed to know about God and His purpose, and that there was no need for further doctrinal development. (This would also explain why I can find all of the Christadelphian community’s essential beliefs and practices in the Apostles’ Creed and the Didache.)

Indeed, as his own life drew to a close, Paul himself appears to sense that this age of maturity is not far off:

    Act 20:26-27.
    Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
    For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

“All the counsel of God.” That seems pretty comprehensive to me.

Again, when writing to Timothy, Paul seems to breath a sigh of relief not unmingled with fatigue:

    II Timothy 4:7.
    I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:

He considers his own work to be finished. Now it will be left to other men; hence his exhortation in Acts 20:26-27…

    Acts 20:28-30.
    Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
    For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
    Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

…which, interestingly enough, speaks of the schisms that would later beset the body of Christ. And of course, these were less easily dealt with in the absence of men who possessed the Holy Spirit, which is why Paul instructs the readers of his epistles to hold fast to the teachings that they have received from Christ, through him.

This is because Paul knows that the gospel of Christ is…

    the power of God unto salvation

…as we read in Romans 1:6.

And if the gospel of Christ is “the power of God unto salvation” (as Paul clearly states), we have no need of any further theological development! (After all, how could anyone possibly improve on a message that is already capable of providing salvation...?)
QUOTE
the Scripture is completely emphatic on the guidance of the Holy Spirit passing on from the Apostles, with nary a hint of it coming to an end.


Really? I certainly don’t find that in I Corinthians 13, nor do I find it in the record of history.
QUOTE
Paul emphatically professes that the Holy Spirit was passed on by Him to such as Timothy


Yep.
QUOTE
and enjoins Timothy to do likewise, unto the generations:


Does he? And just how many generations was Timothy capable of passing it onto, do you think?
QUOTE
Acts 8:18 When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money


The very event to which I myself have referred. But it does not say anything about the continued presence of the H/S for all time.
QUOTE
1 Tim 5:22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.


A disputed text. Some have argued that it refers to the passing on of the Holy Spirit, others believe that it merely refers to the installation of an elder, which did not necessarily involve the passing on of the Holy Spirit; still others (following an alternative grammatical construction) say that it refers to the “arrest” of a man accused of sin in the ecclesia, or the laying of hands on the sick (most unlikely, IMHO.)

A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures of the New Testament, 1933) admits that it could go either way:

    1Ti 5:22 - Lay hands hastily (cheiras tacheōs epitithei).
    Present active imperative of epitithēmi in the sense of approval (ordination) as in Act_6:6; Act_13:3. But it is not clear whether it is the case of ministers just ordained as in 1Ti_4:14 (epithesis), or of warning against hasty ordination of untried men, or the recognition and restoration of deposed ministers (1Ti_5:20) as suits the context. The prohibition suits either situation, or both.

But regardless of which interpretation you accept, the Holy Spirit is not mentioned. I certainly see nothing here which requires the continued presence of the Holy Spirit in the body of Christ, for all times.
QUOTE
2 Tim 1:6 For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.


This tells me that Timothy received “the gift of God” by the laying on of hands, but does not tell me what the gift actually was. (It may have been the Holy Spirit, or a natural talent of some kind.) There is no reference to the Holy Spirit here. Now, I actually believe that it does refer to the gift of the Holy Spirit (so that’s OK), but I see no evidence that Timothy had the power to pass it on, nor do I see any instruction for him to do so.
QUOTE
2 Tim 2:2 And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.


This tells me that the teachings of Paul were passed on to those qualified to teach others. It says nothing at all about the Holy Spirit.
QUOTE
Likewise, the Lord:

Matt 28:18-20 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Did the Gospel reach ‘all nations’ in the Apostolic Age, or before the canon?


Nope. How is this relevant? And did you notice that Christ is with them “till the end of the age”? That’s a finite period of time.

Unless, of course, you believe that these same apostles are still running around the place, teaching and baptising all nations…

QUOTE
He says He will be with them, and how that is so:

John 14: 16-18 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever-- the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Forever. Not ‘until the end of the Apostolic Age’, or, ‘until you canonize the Bible’.


This is precisely why I prefer literal translations, such as Young’s…

    John 14:16.
    and I will ask the Father, and another Comforter He will give to you, that he may remain with you—to the age;

…and Green’s LITV:

    John 14:16.
    And I will petition the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, that He may remain with you to the age,

Both of which correspond with I Corinthians 13, which refers to the cessation of the Spirit and its gifts.
QUOTE
And what will the Spirit do?

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.


Well, that’s exactly what I’ve been saying all along, isn't it?
QUOTE
We reject ‘authoritative’ private interpretation, pure and simple. Catholics do indeed interpret the Scripture for themselves, and are free to do so. The key is ‘authoritatively’, so as to claim that our interpretation is ‘the’ interpretation.


But at the end of the day, what does this really mean, and what does it amount to?

For example, some Catholics tell me that if they studies the Scriptures and arrives at a position that is contrary to that of the Church, they would, by definition, have arrived at a heretical position. Notice that this would place them at variance with the Church whether they asked others to accept it or not! (Remember, heresy is not defined by “what you ask others to believe”, but “what you personally believe.”)

If they is truly convicted of his position, they must (like Luther) leave the Church. If not, they may consult the clergy, who will be sure to set them straight. This is fine – but it still begs the question – why run the risk of falling into heresy by studying the Scriptures by yourself, when (as you have argued forcefully from the OT record) this is really the sort of thing that should be left to those who are qualified?

So again – what is the point of studying the Scriptures by yourself? Surely this would only make sense if you felt the need to re-examine your position and test its veracity, in order that you might be truly convicted of your current beliefs. But how can you do this within a Church which has already told you that you are not qualified to arrive at an authoritative conclusion?

And so we see that the argument from Church authority is hopelessly circular...
QUOTE
Here is the thing: not once in the whole of the NT, do we read of a single person coming to the truth of the Gospel from the Scripture alone.


Well, even if I take this at face value (for the sake of the argument), it still doesn’t prove that such a thing is impossible.
QUOTE
Protestantism is not only built upon private judgment, but culturally, the self is deemed paramount for understanding. I think that is why you so often rail against those who will quote the teachings of their Church, while proclaiming that what you write is all your own!


Unless otherwise stated, what I do write is all my own. I have never denied the presence of a “cultural persuasion” (you are free to call it “doctrinal bias” if you wish, for we all come to the Bible with some preconceptions), but I have always worked hard to demonstrate that my conclusions are genuinely my own; that I have examined and re-examined them for myself, and that I invite others to do the same, so that my own convictions might be challenged. What I object to in particular, is any attempt to dismiss me as “brainwashed”, “uncritical”, or “unthinking.” The Christadelphian community has no hierarchy, and no paid clergy. We encourage each other to test our own beliefs on a regular basis.

We certainly have no incentive to do otherwise.
QUOTE
The Catholic Church never opposed the reading and studying of Scripture, except when the Scriptures were deformed copies and translations, or were being used to undermine the faith, as we even read in Scripture can be done (2 Pet 3:16).


Well, I reckon we’ll have to thrash out your definition of “deformed copies and translations” some other time. I seem to recall that Tyndale’s Bible was categorically rejected by the Church as “poorly translated”, and yet (a) the KJV committee used about two thirds of it when formulating their own translation, and (b) I don’t hear Catholics railing against the KJV in the way that the Church did against Tyndale’s Bible, so it can’t have been too bad, after all.
QUOTE
Having protected the Scriptures for fifteen hundred years, they were not about to let anyone at all take ownership, so as to defame and distort it.


Again, this is tending towards the subjective. One man’s “distortion” is another man’s “interpretation.” And in any case, the Catholic Church did not protect Scripture all by herself. At the very most, she can only be said to have protected (a) some early copies of various documents, and (b) her own early translations of the OT and NT.

Meanwhile, the Jews were busy protecting the Hebrew Scriptures in their original language; a far more valuable prize than any copy of those same Scriptures in Latin or Greek. So we have the Jews to thank for the preservation of the OT.
QUOTE
Simply remember that it was Luther who wanted to remove James, Hebrews, revelation and Jude, and routinely disparaged much of the OT as Jewish fables.


True. But Luther was not the only Protestant on the block, and his attitude was hardly shared by many others, was it?
QUOTE
Catholics do indeed venerate the Word of God in Scripture, Ev, but we do not make of our individual selves the final arbiters of its meaning.


I don’t either. I rely on a comprehensive range of standard textual and linguistic authorities. I make no claims to professional expertise.
QUOTE
We do not believe that means countless individuals believing nearly as many individual Gospels.


Well, neither do I. In fact, I’m sure that only the loosest ecumenical Protestant would ever believe such a thing.
QUOTE
And so, if the Scripture says the Church can teach even those in the Heavenly realms, we accept that it can teach us, as it is written.


The only problem here is that the Catholic Church’s own epistemological system is entirely circular. She claims to be the sole arbiter of truth, and yet when it is asked where we might find evidence for her claims, we are most frequently referred to her own statements concerning herself.

Now, all epistemological systems are circular, to some extent. But the Catholic Church also seems to rely too heavily on eisegesis. She extrapolates a tremendous amount of dogmatic material from a single verse (or even sentence!), and I cannot feel comfortable with such a methodology.

QUOTE
Oddly, you keep procclaiming that what you wriite is your own, and get on others for not doing the same – and then quote Paul who says that what he teaches – is not his own!


There is, of course, a difference between Paul saying “I received this from Christ” (which he did!), and a Catholic saying “This is what Thomas Aquinas has to say”, when I ask him for his own views on the matter.
QUOTE
You rightly say that the Apostles were Spirit guided, correct?


Correct.
QUOTE
Ever notice how, even after seventeen years of ministry, the revelations from Christ Himself, the remarkable conversion on the road to Damascus, the personal writing of Scripture, even Paul went to the Church to verify that the Gospel he was preaching - was correct?



Are you telling me that a man who possessed the Holy Spirit, and confidently assured the recipients of his own epistles that his writings were inspired, now has doubts about what he’s been teaching? That doesn’t sound right, does it? After all, if we take this road, we are left with no basis for any confidence in the Magisterium. (Sure, they’re “guided by the Holy Spirit”, but what if they’re still wrong?)

I don’t see that this passage tells us any more than that Paul delivered his gospel to men of good reputation (elders of the ecclesia, most likely; see I Timothy 3), in order to ensure that his precious communication might not be perverted, and his work in the Galatian ecclesia gone to waste.

None of this has anything to do with personal judgement.
 
Download BRE - it's FREE

Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish. Proverbs 12:1
.html>