JIMMY AKIN.ORG

« Most Interesting Mash-Up I've Seen Recently | Main | A Christmas Two-Fer Mass Fulfillment? »

December 22, 2006

Bible Scholar of the Year

(Tim Jones)

  Daily Planet religion correspondent Media Halfways reports that Nilsson Publishers (A division of Nilsson/Schmilsson, a subsidiary of Rambling House) has announced the publication of a special edition of the Holy Bible that takes the inspiration for its cover from a recent issue of Time magazine.

The special Sola Scriptura edition features a mirror (made of lightweight reflective Mylar) affixed on the front cover, above the words "Bible Scholar of the Year".

Nilsson Publishers' CEO Miles Blandish told the Daily Planet "This is part of an ongoing effort to give the Holy Scriptures new relevance by presenting them in a hip, culturally aware way that grabs the attention of the public. We realize that part of our mission is to stay current, to keep up with trends... to be phat and dope and poppin' fresh.".

Time magazine recently revealed their "Man of the Year" issue for 2006, with a mirrored cover that reflects the reader's face. Blandish admitted "Frankly, we were a little embarrassed that we hadn't thought of this before. It fits in so well with the idea of Sola Scriptura... what we are saying with this cover is; Who should you really count on to interpret the Bible? The answer? It's right there on the cover!... You! Why rely on someone else who might have it all wrong, when you can get it straight from the horse's mouth?... so to speak.".

Nilsson publishes mainly for the Evangelical Christian market. Evangelical Protestants believe that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to answer any question of faith, and that any sincere believer can understand the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit.

So, what does the Bible mean?... "Whoa, whoa!" Blandish answers when asked about the meaning of Scripture "... that's not for me to say... you have to decide for yourself. The question is, what does it mean... to you?".

The Sola Scriptura edition is available at bookstores, or on the Nilsson/Schmilsson website, for the cost of one million Quatloos (hardback).

Posted by Tim Jones in Curios & Humor | Permalink

Comments

Boy! That hits the nail on the head, dont it?

Posted by: Fr. John Pecoraro | Dec 22, 2006 8:06:47 AM

Excellent! That about says it all, doesn't it?

Posted by: Jordan Potter | Dec 22, 2006 8:12:36 AM

Tim J.,

You better register a trademark and fast!

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Posted by: Inocencio | Dec 22, 2006 8:13:17 AM

You (bible scholar that you are) can jump into the fire, but you'll never be free.

Posted by: | Dec 22, 2006 9:20:30 AM

The above comment is as clear as the commenter's handle.

Posted by: bill912 | Dec 22, 2006 9:22:25 AM

bill912,

The above commenter was talking to his Sola Scriptura edition, not us.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Posted by: Inocencio | Dec 22, 2006 9:25:12 AM

Also available in a loose leaf ring binder edition to allow the wise reader to decide on a book-by-book basis which books should be included.

DIY canon by the person most inspired - You! not some corrupt Papist institution.

Posted by: Leo | Dec 22, 2006 9:48:53 AM

I recall reading somewhere a symbolic representation of the fall of the angels. In this representation, all of the angels were created initially good and so were able to see God in a direct sense. When Satan and other angels turned against God, however, it is as though they were bound up in a mirrored room and each could thereafter see only his own reflection. The idea of selfishness appears somehow encoded in this representation.

I don't remember where I read this figurative representation, but if there be any truth to it, then this mirror-covered Bible would seem a spooky thing indeed.

Posted by: Thomas E. Vaughan | Dec 22, 2006 10:03:31 AM

Brilliant!

Posted by: Danny Garland Jr. | Dec 22, 2006 10:05:00 AM

I have exercised my authority to read and interpreted holy scripture. I have decided it says the Catholic Church is the true Church. I hereby surrender such authority to that Church.

*grin*

Posted by: Jim Whall | Dec 22, 2006 10:35:29 AM

Coming soon: the Choose Your Own Adventure Bible.

You are: a first century Jewish man hailing (with your mom) from the podunk town of Nazareth. Your teachings have fascinated a bunch of fishermen, tax collectors and ex-prostitutes, while at the same time causing the constabulary to drum the fingers on their breast-plates in nervous silence and royally hacking off the local religious leaders.

Your quest: to save the world!

Your latest quandry: Recently, you've made some statements about eating your flesh that have confused some of your followers, caused others to walk, and again hacked off the local religious leaders.

Your choices:

One: Stand by your statements and, hey, what the heck, emphasize them a couple of time using words that reflect the animal nature of "gnawing," etc. You said it and you meant it, darn it! If you choose this option, turn to page 777.

Two: Rephrase it in a way that makes clear the symbolic nature of what you said. End with saying, "Hey guys, come back. I was jus' playin' wi'choo." If you choose this option, turn to page 13.

Three: Change the subject and say, "Isn't it great that we agree with all these wacky Pagans? I mean, truth is relative, right guys? There are no absolutes, darn it. Not a single one." You then join hands and start singing folk songs to distract them from the absolute statement you just made. If you choose this option, turn to page 666.

Four: Shrug, sit down in the dirt, assume a lotus position and stare at your navel. If you choose this option, turn to page Q.

Posted by: Jared | Dec 22, 2006 10:38:20 AM

It would be very easy to make a Sola Fide edition, completely non existent at zero cost. The vendor does not have to sell it and the believer does not have to buy it.

Posted by: jmn | Dec 22, 2006 11:27:50 AM

Very apologetic. An example to evangelists everywhere.

Or was that to Count Tilly's troops?

Posted by: Labrialumn | Dec 22, 2006 3:15:54 PM

Tim,

Protestantism doesn't teach that the Bible is sufficient to answer any question on faith, rather sufficient for those issues of faith we need to know:

"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them." (Westminster Confession of Faith)

Posted by: Jeb Protestant | Dec 22, 2006 3:32:34 PM

destined to be a classic for sure.

The spoof, not the product.

Posted by: kalej | Dec 22, 2006 4:02:37 PM

Tim J.,

Great post. I love your comments in the comboxes, too, btw.

But, I've also got to applaud Jared. As a big fan of Edward Packard's "Choose Your Own Adventures" books, I thought Jared's comment was great. (I tried to convince my daugher to buy some CYOA books just this afternoon!)

Posted by: Cajun Nick | Dec 22, 2006 4:03:15 PM

so -- your quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith is something we don't need to know?

0:)

Posted by: Mary | Dec 22, 2006 6:13:13 PM

Other than the Nilsson/Schmilsson rhyme, is there some deeper meaning to the name Nilsson that I'm missing?

Posted by: Margaret | Dec 22, 2006 6:42:36 PM

Jeb-

Your comment, which I appreciate, none the less highlights an element of Protestant thought that I NOW see (being an adult convert) as a profound deficiency, that is; the tendency toward minimalism.

Let'say (for the sake of argument) that a sincere reader CAN (with the help of the Holy Spirit) glean everything necessary for salvation from the Bible alone (and leaving aside the question of who we look to even to tell us what the Bible IS).

Is that ALL that the Lord desires for us in this life? What if (by ignoring the remainder of the Deposit of Faith... the Sacraments, the Magisterium, etc... in other words, by missing the Church) we are saved, but only "as through fire"?

Do we REALLY want to define the Christian faith in terms of the LEAST we can possibly get by with in order to gain salvation? Is faith alone sufficient for salvation? Sure, in a pinch... but isn't it likely that God wants MORE for each of us than to just limp into heaven smelling of smoke?

Protestantism has taken a kernel of Truth (that faith alone CAN save in a pinch, which the Church acknowledges) and has isolated and universalized it in such a way as to exclude every other aspect of the Gospel. Faith alone might save a person, but God wants to transform us, to sanctify us, and to unite us to himself TOTALLY, even in this life. This requires the environment of the Church Christ established, and access to the whole deposit of faith. We cannot even be baptized outside the Church... and Baptism is only the gate!

A person - sincere or not - MIGHT be able to find salvation through reading the Bible alone, but he/she also might NOT be able to. This is abundantly clear... there are mountains of evidence to demonstrate it. The sincere, prayerful searching of the Bible alone is simply no guarantee - even of salvation. Where do you think cults come from?

We need to think of the faith in terms of ALL that God desires for us in this life - not just the MINIMUM required for SOME to be saved - and that means looking to the Church Christ established.

Posted by: Tim J. | Dec 22, 2006 6:42:50 PM

Oh, did NO ONE get my Nilsson reference?

What's The Point?

Posted by: Tim J. | Dec 22, 2006 6:45:36 PM

Tim J.

My dad is a big music buff.

So put the lime in the coconut and drink 'em both up 'cause I can't live if livin' is without you!

Posted by: Dr. Eric | Dec 22, 2006 8:01:55 PM

Okay, Dr. Eric, I feel a little better.

But what about Media Halfways?

Posted by: Tim J. | Dec 22, 2006 8:07:41 PM

I can't hear you, Tim; everybody's talkin' at me.

Posted by: bill912 | Dec 22, 2006 8:16:49 PM

Actually, someone earlier on DID get the Nilsson reference, but I won't say who.

Posted by: Tim J. | Dec 22, 2006 8:45:06 PM

Pilgrim's Regress

Posted by: Dr. Eric | Dec 22, 2006 8:45:46 PM

And your point?

Posted by: bill912 | Dec 22, 2006 8:52:32 PM

And this is relevant to the post HOW... ?

Posted by: Tim J. | Dec 22, 2006 8:56:28 PM

We seem to have a troll, Tim, using various handles and posting on several threads. Has Jimmy lent you Glamdring?

Posted by: bill912 | Dec 22, 2006 8:57:56 PM

I guess he has. While you're at it, there's one on "My General Christmas Present."

Posted by: bill912 | Dec 22, 2006 9:01:21 PM

The above unrelated posts have been deleted. Dumping lengthy, irrelevant comments into the thread is rude enough... the bigotry makes it downright obnoxious.

If you really have a burr under your saddle about a particular topic, get your own blog.

Any similar comments will also be deleted.

At least as far as my posts are concerned, "You shall not pass!".

Posted by: Tim J. | Dec 22, 2006 9:12:06 PM

Sorry, bill, I can only get medieval on comments to posts I have written myself.

Posted by: Tim J. | Dec 22, 2006 9:14:32 PM

Of course all of this presumes the reader can actually READ, and afford a Bible, and has time to read it... The VAST majority of Christians through the ages had no such luxury.

Given all the failings in my life, if someone where to give me this Bible I would likely feel a bit unnerved. IF I were my own best expert, I would be in trouble.

Posted by: A Simple Sinner | Dec 22, 2006 10:06:09 PM

"Other than the Nilsson/Schmilsson rhyme, is there some deeper meaning to the name Nilsson that I'm missing?"

Also, Margaret, "Nilsson" is a play on the name of a HUGE real-life bible publisher.

Posted by: Tim J. | Dec 23, 2006 8:07:14 AM

Tim J.

Was I right about Pilgrim's Regress?

Posted by: Dr. Eric | Dec 23, 2006 8:11:20 AM

Oh, Mr. Tim, are you referring to Thomas Nelson?

Posted by: patrick | Dec 23, 2006 8:43:53 AM

Tim,

Protestants don't deny that God wants to transform Christians. As the WCF says:

"They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection,[1] by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them:[2] the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed,[3] and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified;[4] and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces,[5] to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.[6]"

As far as minimalism goes, the whole emphasis of contemporary Roman Catholicism toward non-Catholics and non-Christians is minimalism writ large. If, as the pope believes, the Koran is the "holy book of a great religion," then isn't Rome preaching a minimlist view of truth?

In my years as an Evangelical, I have never heard the "minimalism" that I was taught as a Rome Catholic growing up (be a good person, do the best you can, we are all getting to God in our own way, etc.)

Posted by: Jeb Protestant | Dec 23, 2006 10:00:45 AM

"be a good person, do the best you can, we are all getting to God in our own way, etc."

That is not Church teaching, Jeb. You know that.

And, YES, Dr. Eric, well done!

I remember laughing so hard at the first chapter of Pilgrims Regress, because it was so TRUE to the way I was brought up.

It may not be C.S. Lewis's best, but it is worthwhile and entertaining. I still find it very relevant.

Posted by: Tim J. | Dec 23, 2006 10:48:43 AM

Also, Jeb, most Protestants (I can't say all) look at salvation as one event, and sanctification another.

In Catholic thought, they are different aspects of the same process.

We are saved THROUGH sanctification, so "doing your best" is no small part of that.

Posted by: Tim J. | Dec 23, 2006 10:55:11 AM

In my years as an Evangelical, I have never heard the "minimalism" that I was taught as a Rome Catholic growing up (be a good person, do the best you can, we are all getting to God in our own way, etc.)

The tragedy of another catholic chased away from the church by the liberal we're-all-the-same ilk.

Jeb, you've been reading this blog for a while. You know this isn't what the church teaches but what some self appointed reformers were/are trying to do to the church. This is new to Catholism but not to Protestents. cf: Unitarian church and many others. You're smart enough to filter through the misguided Protestent trash, why the insistence this is what the catholic church is about. That's like saying all catholics cant spell just cause Slowboy cant.

Posted by: Slowboy | Dec 23, 2006 10:55:34 AM

Tim,

But I think an organization should be evaluated by what it teaches and what it permits to be taught. For example, Benedict and JP II teach evolution and higher critical views of Genesis. They permit people to teach at Catholic universities and seminaries who deny the historicity of Genesis and Adam and Eve. (One member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission said that Genesis 1-11 is as historical as Little Red Riding Hood.)

Shouldn't I as a Christian look at what the Bible says about creation and compare it to what these men teach/taught?

Posted by: Jeb Protestant | Dec 23, 2006 12:55:35 PM

Okay, as another Protestant in the group, I'd just like to say that I think that this post was actually funny.

Jeb, there is no uniform agreement among Catholics or Protestants about how to read Genesis. I'm curious to know your sources, though, on who said those things. ("One member of the Pontifical Commission..." tells me nothing. "Billy Bob Jim Joe Roy Cardinal Timmins of Appalacia said to Us Magazine on December 8, 2004..." would tell me more.) To say that the Bible is infallible does not require an anally-retentivly close reading of the Creation account. If the earth is 4.6 billion years old as scientists estimate, would that shake your faith in God? Would that decimate the texts? Or could there be alternative interpretations of the words that would allow for that time frame to exist?

I agree with the Popes. We should study the Creation account closer and compare it with the science finds instead of just immediately jumping on the defensive the way things have happened in the past. Science is more prevalent than Christianity in society now and we should treat the situation according, "turning the other cheek" as Jesus commands and trying to be the bigger person here.

In summary, when you make a deliberately inflammatory comment like that, please cite your sources. I don't recall the Catholic Church ever supporting evolution, just calling for additional study. I assume that they want to study the position in order to better refute it.

Posted by: Cory | Dec 23, 2006 5:37:53 PM

"Shouldn't I as a Christian look at what the Bible says about creation and compare it to what these men teach/taught?"

Do what I do, Greg; read the Bible AND the encyclicals and conciliar documents, AND the Catechism, and THEN compare to what you hear from some priest or bishop.

I try not to listen to kooks, whether nominally Protestant or Catholic.

Posted by: Tim J. | Dec 23, 2006 7:15:46 PM

Not that I think a non-literal reading of Genesis is kooky!

Faithful Christians may understand Genesis in various ways, as long as a few basics are maintained.

Posted by: Tim J. | Dec 23, 2006 7:20:40 PM

Oookay. So lets look at Adam and Eve and family. So they have kids. 2 boys to be exact, per the story. Eventually, one runs off (more like, is ran off) and starts having kids. Wait. Having kids? Having kids with who? Another child of Adam and Eve? But, wait. It isn't said in the story that Adam and Eve had other kids other than their boys. So ... there's a problem with the story here. How do we solve it? Do we say that Adam and Eve had kids other than their boys (even though, per the story, this would not be the case)? But, then, what makes these boys any more important and why had all their other kids run off before hand? OR could it be that perhaps Adam and Eve are representative of something but are not, in themselves, the whole story - just the most important part(s) of some larger story mashed together in a synoptic story?

The point is, once you start explaining the story to be something other than what is literally written on the page, any number of good interpretations become valid - and this rule applies to the whole story, not just bits and pieces. However, there has to be something in the story itself that remains in those interpretations. In the case of Adam and Eve, it's that mankind screwed up in the beginning, and we've been paying for it ever since because of the sins of our fathers. Adam and Eve establish the moral and spiritual setting of the rest of the salvation story.

Now, is it important that Adam and Eve were the first? Thematically, yes. Literally ... well ... Cain's wife had to come from somewhere, and it would seem (since Adam and Eve's progeny are of some significance) that they were not from Adam and Eve. So ... I'm gonna have to so say no on the question of literal-ness. And if I'm going to say no there, then I'm going to have to say no about the literalness of Genesis 1 and 2 - but that's not to say that the themes of the story are not important.

Haven't we already had this conversation before somewhere?

Posted by: AnotherCoward | Dec 23, 2006 7:32:36 PM

It's about time I was recognized as the Biblical Scholar of the Year!!!

Posted by: Dr. Eric | Dec 23, 2006 8:17:28 PM

Tim,

But as I pointed out: it is the last 2 popes who have higher critical views of Genesis. The curent pope denies that Paul wrote the pastorals and says there are two Isaiahs, etc. Is it possible that these men are wrong?

Posted by: Jeb Protestant | Dec 24, 2006 4:18:49 AM

It can be possible that they are wrong. The pope is protected from teaching error in Faith and Morals ONLY when he uses phrases like We define... We teach... It is binding...

The Church and the Pope very rarely get involved in daily biblical exegesis. And in defining something, the parameters are very narrow and limited. Don't expect that everything that comes from Rome is the official teaching. Look to the Councils and Ex Cathedra statements.

Posted by: Dr. Eric | Dec 24, 2006 7:27:23 AM

"The curent pope denies that Paul wrote the pastorals"

I really doubt that.

Posted by: Tim J. | Dec 24, 2006 7:44:59 AM

Tim,

See Called to Communion at page 67. He says that Acts and the Pastorals belong "the cusp of the second generation or else already belong to it . . ." Pretty clearly a post-apostolic date for Luke and/or the Pastorals.

Posted by: Jeb Protestant | Dec 24, 2006 8:10:46 AM

Tim,

See Called to Communion at page 67. He says that Acts and the Pastorals belong "the cusp of the second generation or else already belong to it . . ." Pretty clearly a post-apostolic date for Luke and/or the Pastorals.

Posted by: Jeb Protestant | Dec 24, 2006 8:10:47 AM

Tim,

He is even more explicit in Principles of Catholic Theology at p. 101:

"they [liberals] regard with suspicion everything that comes after Paul -- especially, then the writings of St. Luke and a fortiori the pastoral epistles."

You can view these pages on Amazon.

Posted by: Jeb Protestant | Dec 24, 2006 8:46:08 AM

"It isn't said in the story that Adam and Eve had other kids other than their boys."

Oh really? Then how come it says in Gen. 5:4 that Adam "had sons AND DAUGHTERS"? Just because birth of the daughters isn't mentioned in Gen. 4 doesn't mean the daughters weren't born.

As for Pope Benedict's obviously non-ex-cathedra personal opinionabout St. Paul's pastoral epistles, yes, he does seem to doubt that St. Paul wrote them. However, that's his personal opinion and many Christians disagree with him, including pretty much all Christians prior to the 1800s and 1900s.

Posted by: Jordan Potter | Dec 24, 2006 9:01:56 AM

Jeb Protestant,

May I ask what dates you infer when, then Cardinal Ratzinger, writes "the cusp of the second generation or else already belong to it . . .".

What dates do you give to the pastoral epistles of the New Testament?

What authority do you accept that gives those dates?

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Posted by: Inocencio | Dec 24, 2006 9:13:40 AM

Inocencio,

I date the NT prior to 70AD.

If all we had to go on was Ratzinger's statement in Called to Communion, it would be sufficiently ambigous. But given the other statement and his general opposition to conservative dating/authorship (e.g., his statements on Genesis, Daniel and Isaiah) I think we can safely say he doesn't accept Pauline authorship of the Pastorals.

The Pastorals are to be accepted as genuine because they are written by St. Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He most likely died toward the end of the reign of Nero. That means, obviously, that they were written sometime prior to June 68AD (or 68 CE as Catholics often call it today).

Posted by: Jeb Protestant | Dec 24, 2006 9:29:09 AM

The Pastorals are to be accepted as genuine because they are written by St. Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Jeb,
By your statement here, clearly, you do not know the Catholic Church's position on the Pauline corpus. Furthermore, you need to go back and study how the bible came to be in the first place. Or didn't you know the Catholic Church was responsible for putting together the books of the bible in the first place?

...or 68 CE as Catholics often call it today

C.E. is an invention of the secular folks, not Catholics, for goodness sake. A.D. was, in fact, what Catholics have always used since -- you can tell by the very writings of the Early Church Fathers, which can attest not only to this but to the very Catholicity of the Early Church itself!

How many more strawmen are you going to throw at our way?

Posted by: Esau | Dec 24, 2006 9:41:46 AM

Esau,

This post was started by Tim who said Protestants were, in effect, putting themselves in place of the church as authoratative interpreters of the Bible.

But as I have shown, Benedict has placed himself in opposition to the Catholic church (up to say c. 1950) by claiming Paul didn't write the Pastorals. (Even if it is just his opinion, he held it and taught it while heading the Congregation for the Faith.)

So why aren't Catholics calling on Benedict to stop engaging in private interpretation of the Bible?

Catholics can't have it both ways.

Posted by: Jeb Protestant | Dec 24, 2006 9:55:16 AM

Jeb,

The Pastorals are to be accepted as genuine because they are written by St. Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

With all due respect, you're begging the question. How do you know this to be true?

Posted by: Brother Cadfael | Dec 24, 2006 9:56:06 AM

BC,

We know that Jesus lived, that He rose from the dead, the He fulfilled OT scripture and that he said that He would lead His followers into truth. Paul was a follower who taught and wrote authoratatively. The Pastorals are said to be written by him and that is the testimony of the early Christian writers. So that's good enough for me. You may claim that it is question begging and circular, but as van Til said, all reasoning is circular. You've got to jump in and start somewhere.

But I would ask you, when did the the Catholic Church ever teach what its leaders teach today: the Pastorals are not from Paul, but they are inspired nonetheless.?

Posted by: Jeb Protestant | Dec 24, 2006 10:36:02 AM

Esau,

This post was started by Tim who said Protestants were, in effect, putting themselves in place of the church as authoratative interpreters of the Bible.

But as I have shown, Benedict has placed himself in opposition to the Catholic church (up to say c. 1950) by claiming Paul didn't write the Pastorals. (Even if it is just his opinion, he held it and taught it while heading the Congregation for the Faith.)

So why aren't Catholics calling on Benedict to stop engaging in private interpretation of the Bible?

Catholics can't have it both ways.

JEB:

I appreciate your honesty and a certain fairness in your post, though. This is the kind of dialogue I appreciate from my Protestant brethren where there is a 2-way communication (in spite of the difference of opinion) that, in fact, seems to exist unlike with some other Protestant folks who, in spite of all the evidence, ignores the other side.

I've got to admit, at the very least, you have acknowledged some level of understanding of the Catholic Church as it concerns the Canon of Scripture.

I respect that.

I think what you might want to do is read up on the works of Cardinal Ratzinger through the Pontifical Council as it regards Scripture.

I don't have the particular work that I have in mind with me on the computer I'm currently using.

The particular one I know of is the one where Cardinal Ratzinger actually also treats the subject of the historical Jesus as well.

I will find out when I come back from Christmas break.

At any rate, God bless you, Jeb and have a great Christms, brutha!

Posted by: Esau | Dec 24, 2006 10:50:31 AM

Jeb,

When were the above books written, before or after Benedict's ascension to the Papacy?

Posted by: Dr. Eric | Dec 24, 2006 12:04:00 PM

Eric,

Before, but I believe that Called to Communion was written when he headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Posted by: Jeb Protestant | Dec 24, 2006 12:10:32 PM

Jeb,

The Pastorals are said to be written by him and that is the testimony of the early Christian writers. So that's good enough for me. You may claim that it is question begging and circular, but as van Til said, all reasoning is circular. You've got to jump in and start somewhere.

You say that you want to start with the testimony of the early Christians. OK. I think that is a good place to start. By the way, do you agree that you're relying on Tradition?

But the real question is how do you accept what they say about Paul's authorship of the pastoral letters, while at the same time rejecting what the earliest Christians say about Rome and the papacy? Do you accept or reject what the earliest Church fathers have to say about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

What standard do you use to judge?

Posted by: Brother Cadfael | Dec 24, 2006 12:32:14 PM

BC,

In relying on historical evidence, I'm relying on "tradition." For example, part of the reason I believe Jesus lived is that I accept Jewish tradition on this matter (Josephus, etc.). Obviously in so doing I am not bound to believe everything they believed about him.

I am not, however, relying on "Tradition." Church Tradition on the matters you reference (and I don't completely agree with your interpretation of these issues) is a different question.

Posted by: Jeb Protestant | Dec 24, 2006 12:54:22 PM

If you are all too young to remember that Nilsson/Schmilsson was a fantastic album (NOT CD) from the 1970's then you aren't old enough to have studied enough of the Bible yet to pontificate here.

The Catholic Church gave everyone the Bible, the protestants came along and gutted it, and now the protestants think they know more about it than the Church. Try again. We have the years of experience behind us (about 1,500 more years than the protestants), and we have the early Church Fathers, who knew those who knew Jesus. That pretty much speaks for the Church as the final authority.

Of course, you are free to believe what you like, but first, get a copy of Nilsson/Schmilsson, and listen to it with old-fashioned headphones with the real pad seals around your ears, and then lighten up and learn to listen to the voice of experience, your Church.

Peace of Christ,

TCN

Posted by: TCN | Dec 25, 2006 7:25:25 PM

Jeb,

I will accept that you are relying on "tradition" and not "Tradition." (Although such a distinction is potentially meaningless without some level of precision and a common understanding). In that regard, it appears that you are using some notion of "historical evidence" in your understanding of "tradition."

As you point out, you will not believe everthing that Jewish history says about the person Jesus, but the fact that Jewish history says anything at all about him is strong evidence that he did, in fact, exist. In legal terms, this would be roughly analagous to a "statement against interest," which is deemed inherently more reliable and trustworthy as evidence than a self-serving statement.

My question is this: When evaluating historical evidence, or tradition as you call it, what standard do you use to judge what to accept and not to accept?

Recognizing the potential difficulty of addressing that question in the abstract, apply it to the canon of Scripture. It would seem to me that a late first century Jewish determination of what is in the Jewish Scriptures (Christian Old Testament) does not have the same indicia of reliability as the Jewish history acknowledging the existence of Jesus. They have, by that point in time, a different agenda and a different world view than late first century Christians. A determination by them at that point in time as to what should be included in their canon does not necessarily coincide with what a first century Christian would regard as canonical. There is certainly evidence that Christ and the authors of the New Testament regarded books outside the as-yet-to-be-determined Jewish canon as scriptural.

So again, what measure do you use when evaluating the historical evidence to determine what is or is not in the canon of Sacred Scripture?

Posted by: Brother Cadfael | Dec 28, 2006 9:32:01 AM

Bro. Cadfael-
In your estimation, what would you say was the measure a say- jew 50 to 60 years prior to the birth of Christ would employ to determine what was or was not a part of the O.T cannon?

Posted by: erick | Dec 28, 2006 10:17:40 PM

You know, gentlemen, in your never-ending desire to dump on evangelical Protestants, you reveal your own spiritual and intellectual laziness.

You dismiss any attempt by individual Christians to read and study Scripture for themselves as essentially the chance to incubate new Luthers. Instead, you defer all intellectual endeavors to a coterie of self-appointed ecclesiastics whose understanding of Scripture is, at best, tenuous.

Exhibit A: Pope JPII's single-handed attempt to dismiss centuries of teaching concerning capital punishment for murder in favor of his own revisionist, abolitionist, immoral stance.

Exhibit B: The confusion of "vengeance" with the application of legitimate due process concerning capital punishment.

Exhibit C: The failure to distinguish the application of due process with vigilante mob action concerning capital punishment.

Exhibit D: An over-reliance on the CCC and the Lectionary as sources, neither of which are divinely inspired in, of and by themselves.

Exhibit E: The refusal to see Islam as anything but a fellow "monotheistic" religion (when a detailed study of Scripture would show that Allah and Yahweh are not the same).

Exhibit F: The failure to understand the fact that the Mosaic Law is a multi-faceted entity that reflects God's moral mind and fundamental ethical demands for humanity -- a fact that St. Paul does not deny even in his letter to the Romans.

Exhibit G: The universally pathetic homiletics and catechesis within Catholicism.

What you refuse to see is that any and all Christians have the obligation to make faith their own. Doing so necessarily involves studying Scripture for oneself, asking questions and going beyond the cliches that permeate the world of institutionalized (and bastardized) Christianity across the board -- cliches that the instutionalized church promotes instead of a true understanding of faith.

Posted by: Joseph D'Hippolito | Dec 28, 2006 11:00:48 PM

Joseph D'Hippolito,

What you refuse to see is that the Church's authority comes from God and not you.

Christ Himself institutionalized Christianity. Your main complaint is that He did not give you the authority you desire.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Posted by: Inocencio | Dec 29, 2006 6:34:51 AM

Joseph,

I was going to respond, but your strawman was so weak it had dissipated in the wind by the time I got to the combox.

Erick,

I imagine he would have deferred to the Jewish authorities on such matters.

Posted by: Brother Cadfael | Dec 29, 2006 7:29:56 AM

Inocencio-
Isn't your argument rather circular, being that the only way you "know" that the Church's authority comes from God----is that your Church tells you so?.

Posted by: erick | Dec 29, 2006 9:49:26 AM

You dismiss any attempt by individual Christians to read and study Scripture for themselves as essentially the chance to incubate new Luthers.

"No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation."

Guess where I got that?

(Note that prophecy means inspired speech -- and all Scripture is inspired.)

Posted by: Mary | Dec 29, 2006 9:59:57 AM

Mary-
--" and all scripture is inspired"-
How do you know?.

Posted by: erick | Dec 29, 2006 10:06:37 AM

Erick,

Inocencio-
Isn't your argument rather circular, being that the only way you "know" that the Church's authority comes from God----is that your Church tells you so?.

It might be, if that's all there was. But you are ignoring the fact that two other authoritative sources, Scripture and Tradition, bear witness to the authority of the Church. If you accept any one of the three as true, it will lead you to the truth of the Church's authority.

It is "circular" in the sense that if you reject all three, Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, there is no "evidence" of the point. But in this case, where we can all agree on at least one of the three, it is not circular, but reinforced by the witness of the other two authoritative sources.

Posted by: Brother Cadfael | Dec 29, 2006 10:27:41 AM

Bro. Cadfael-
I beg to differ with you.
Scripture and Tradition bear witness to the authority of the Church--again because Rome says so.
Is this still circular in nature?.

Posted by: erick | Dec 29, 2006 11:00:31 AM

"How do you know?"

The Church taught us so.

The inspired nature of Sacred Scripture, the Holy Trinity, Baptism, these are things that can be proven by Scripture but are not explicitly stated therein.

Without the Church Christ established to lead His followers, these teachings would not have been infallibly defined, protected from error, and transmitted through the centuries within and by Institutional Christianity.

Protestants who do not understand how much they owe the Catholic Church for all they love and hold dear about their own faith (save the relativism and disobedience) remind me of Liberals who think freedom is free (it comes without sacrifice and struggle).

Protestants, for all their evangelical zeal, never stand their ground. How is breaking off an ossified mega-church to start your own "pure and simple" new denomination any different than cutting and running?

A Protestant may feel all high and mighty when he gets in a Catholic's face and waves pamphlets like "Mary's Command" but what about his own church? If the pastor suddenly starts preaching heterodoxy, will the Protestant stay and fight for truth? Will he, in the interest of defending his fellow believers from the incursion of evil within the ranks of his church (the one correct denomination there was)?

No matter what he thinks he is going to do, unless he is convinced by the pastor that he is wrong, he ends up leaving to join another denomination or to start another denomination.

Divided, the only thing that awaits Protestantism is to be conquered.

And you can't get more divided than a white Methodist church a block down the road from a black Methodist church.

Segregation by preference leads to segregation by culture and segregation by country, segregation by region, by state, by race, by political party, by class, by age, even by family name.

"I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through THEIR WORD, so that they may all be ONE, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they may also be like us, THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE THAT YOU SENT ME." -- Jesus

It is disingenuous in the extreme that the same people who thanklessly rob the treasury of faith to start their own denominations also mock the very institution that makes their life in faith possible.

There is not a Protestant on this earth who does not need to fall on his knees and thank God for Holy Mother Church.

Posted by: StubbleSpark | Dec 29, 2006 11:03:00 AM

Erick,

I beg to differ with you.
Scripture and Tradition bear witness to the authority of the Church--again because Rome says so.

No, because Scripture and Tradition say so.

Look at what Scripture says about the Church.

Look at what Tradition says about the Church.

They both bear witness to the teaching authority of the Church.

Is this still circular in nature?

If you refuse to look at what Scripture and Tradition say, and only look at what the Magisterium says about the Church, it would be circular. But that's not how we approach the matter.

Posted by: Brother Cadfael | Dec 29, 2006 11:08:36 AM

"I beg to differ with you.
Scripture and Tradition bear witness to the authority of the Church--again because Rome says so.
Is this still circular in nature?"

Circular to your what, erick?

How is "What is right I believe, What I believe is right because I say so." Any LESS circular than what you accuse Institutionalized Christianity of?

Posted by: StubbleSpark | Dec 29, 2006 11:09:14 AM

erick,

Since we obviously disagree is there, in your understanding, an authority that we as followers of Christ must obey?

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Posted by: Inocencio | Dec 29, 2006 11:17:19 AM

StubbleSpark-
"The Church taught us so".
Precisely my point !.
How do you know that you made an infallible choice by letting Rome dictate your theology?.

Posted by: erick | Dec 29, 2006 11:20:33 AM

erick,

How do you know that you made an infallible choice by letting Rome dictate your theology?

How about answering our questions?

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Posted by: Inocencio | Dec 29, 2006 11:22:07 AM

Erick,

How do you know that you made an infallible choice by letting your own limited knowledge dictate your theology?

All of us combined don't measure up to a St. Basil the Great, a St. Ignatius of Antioch (have you read what he wrote yet, he was martyred in AD 110?) a St. Leo the Great, a St. John Chrysostom, etc...

What makes you think that you have studied the Scriptures more than these guys? They had access to better manuscripts than you have. In fact some of them don't exist any more? You should thank these guys for being some of the most premier theologians ever!

Posted by: Dr. Eric | Dec 29, 2006 11:27:37 AM

Erick,

I'm sure there's nothing new here for you, but just in case, here are some of the high points (not proof texts) from Scripture and Tradition bearing witness to the authority of the Church:

Scripture:

The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. (1 Tm 3:15). Jesus Christ built this Church upon the rock of Saint Peter (Matt. 16:18). By giving Peter the keys of authority (Matt. 16:19), Jesus appointed Peter as the chief steward over His earthly kingdom (cf. Isaiah. 22:19-22). Jesus also charged Peter to be the source of strength for the rest of the apostles (Luke 22:32) and the earthly shepherd of Jesus' flock (John 21:15-17). Jesus further gave Peter, and the apostles and elders in union with him, the power to bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). This teaching authority did not die with Peter and the apostles, but was transferred to future bishops through the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6).

Tradition (lived and handed on by the lives of those who lived according to its teachings, according to the example of Christ and the Apostles. See 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15):

"Follow the bishop, all of you, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the presbyterium as the Apostles. As for the deacons, respect them as the Law of God. Let no one do anything with reference to the Church without the bishop. Only that Eucharist may be regarded as legitimate which is celebrated with the bishop or his delegate presiding. Where the bishop is, there let the community be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Symyrnaens 8 (c. A.D. 110).

"Now all these [heretics] are of much later date than the bishops to whom the apostles committed to the Churches; which fact I have in the third book taken all pains to demonstrate. It follows, then, as a matter of course, that these aforementioned, since they are blind to the truth, and deviate from the [right] way, will walk in various roads; and therefore the footsteps of their doctrine are scattered here and there without agreement or connection. But the path of those belonging to the Church circumscribes the whole world, as possessing the sure tradition of the Apostles, and gives unto us to see that the faith of all is one and the same ...And undoubtedly the preaching of the Church is true and steadfast, in which one and the same way of salvation is shown throughout the whole world...For the Church preaches the truth everywhere..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Preface V 20, 1 (inter A.D. 180/199).

"Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church, those who as I have shown, possess succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of bishops, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession of the succession, and assemble themselves...But those who cleave asunder, and separate the unity of the Church, shall recieve from God the same punishments as Jeroboam did." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4, 26:2 (inter A.D. 180/199).

"The Church's preaching has been handed down through an orderly succession from the Apostles and remains in the Church until the present. That alone is to be believed as the truth which in no way departs from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition." Origen, First Principles 1,2 (c. A.D. 230).

"But what is also to the point, let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles and preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is, nor any longer ought to be called, a Christian." Athanasius, Ad Serapion 1,28 (c. A.D. 350).

"To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you." Augustine, C. Cresconius I:33 (c. A.D. 390).

Posted by: Brother Cadfael | Dec 29, 2006 11:35:21 AM

How do you know that you made an infallible choice by letting Rome dictate your theology?.

Because Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition confirm that that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church cannot err when definitively teaching on matters of faith and morals. Not because the Church says so, but because the Bible and Tradition say that the Church says so. There's a difference.

Posted by: Brother Cadfael | Dec 29, 2006 11:55:02 AM

Inocencio-
I will answer your question, I apologize, I was trying to deal with one other person.
Mr. Inocencio, I believe that "sola scriptura" is the best of both our views.
"Sola ecclesia" reverts to circular reasoning-(I'm sure you would think the same of my view).
In trying to understand Rome's view of their apologetics, I have found the arguments quite good and scholarly.
However I have also found that when applying these same arguments to YOUR theology, it cannot withstand it.
I am fallible, but The Word is not!.
The Word is "Theopneustos"- Tradition is not!

Posted by: erick | Dec 29, 2006 12:17:27 PM

"I am fallible, but The Word is not!."

Then your understanding of the Word could be completely wrong.

Posted by: Tim J. | Dec 29, 2006 12:21:46 PM

Erick,

"Sola ecclesia" reverts to circular reasoning.

Are you claiming that someone here is resorting to "Sola ecclesia"? (If you claim that I am, please show me what I have said that has led to that misimpression.)

Do you at least agree that you need some authority outside of Scripture for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? (Scripture does not tell you what's in Scripture, and it does not tell you that only Scripture is authoritative.)

Posted by: Brother Cadfael | Dec 29, 2006 12:23:11 PM

Bro. Cadfael-
There is no difference!.
Rome dictates not only the extent of Scripture but its meaning as well!- the same is the case with Tradition!- so again, you are not saying much!, Bro. Cadfael!.

Posted by: erick | Dec 29, 2006 12:25:20 PM

The testimony of history, tradition, the constant teaching of the Church and Scripture constitute not a circle, but what Scott Hahn called a "hermeneutical spiral".

All reasoning assumes that you start *somewhere*, holding *some* premises.

Once again, C.S. Lewis -

"Every historical statement in the world is believed on authority. None of us has seen the Norman Conquest or the defeat of the Armada... A man who jibbed at authority in other things as some people do in religion would have to be content to know nothing all his life."

Posted by: Tim J. | Dec 29, 2006 12:30:00 PM

Erick,

There is no difference!.
Rome dictates not only the extent of Scripture but its meaning as well!- the same is the case with Tradition!- so again, you are not saying much!, Bro. Cadfael!.

Forgive my incompetence in explaining this. One does not need Rome's interpretation of Scripture to see that Scripture provides evidence of the Church's authority. Similarly, one does not need Rome's interpretation of Tradtition to see that Tradition provides evidence of the Church's authority. I am failing to see how you regard them as the "same thing."

Posted by: Brother Cadfael | Dec 29, 2006 12:37:05 PM

Christ Himself institutionalized Christianity. Your main complaint is that He did not give you the authority you desire.

Innocencio, I suggest you read Revelation 2-3. Those chapters list several churches, most of which were in various states of decline, if not outright apostacy.

Besides, Innocencio, the same Christ who "institutionalized" Christianity is the same Christ who rhetorically asked, "When the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on the earth?"

The same Christ who tried to defuse disobedience to the Pharisees and Saducees is the same Christ who challenged those vary same authorities.

As those episodes, which are scattered throughout the Gospels, illustrate, religious authorities who have received their commission from God can become radically and fundamentally corrupt.

StubbleSpark, you are quite right about the chaos that permeates much of Protestantism. However, you ignore the opposite side of that coin: the existance in Catholicism of a centralized, rigid governing bureaucracy that places its own self-service, self-survival and desire for influence and secular prestige over the interests and mandates of God. To deny this is to deny at least five centuries of European history. Moreover, if the clerical sex-abuse crisis didn't make that bureaucracy's fundamentally self-serving nature clear, then you are blind beyond hope.

You gentlemen revel in your allegiance to that bureaucracy. Do you seriously believe that it can save anybody from sin?

Posted by: Joseph D'Hippolito | Dec 29, 2006 1:10:56 PM

Bro. Cadfael-
Maybe I'm in the wrong here, but I thought that according to your theology, only Rome was the infallible interpreter of Scripture!.
I thought only Rome could define Sacred Tradition?--- is that right?. If the answer is yes, then everything goes back to Rome!.
If the answer is no, then I apologize!.

Posted by: erick | Dec 29, 2006 1:13:57 PM

"You gentlemen revel in your allegiance to that bureaucracy." That's a lie, and you know it. Their loyalty and obedience is to Christ and His Church.

Posted by: bill912 | Dec 29, 2006 1:19:06 PM

Tim J-
That's right!- I could be wrong!.
Such is the nature of being fallible!--.
Do you think free will is a bad thing only because there is a chance we could choose the wrong way?.
God is not willing that any should perish...yet some do perish!.
The question is ...are YOU fallible?.

Posted by: erick | Dec 29, 2006 1:26:48 PM

Tradition is also God-Breathed. It just wasn't written down like Scripture. Scripture is Holy Tradition that happened to be written down, Holy Tradition that wasn't written down is now known as Tradition. The Church is the pillar and bullwark of Truth. With out those three you don't have a leg to stand on.

Posted by: Dr. Eric | Dec 29, 2006 1:27:30 PM

Very well, bill912, let me pose this: How many of those gentlemen castigated Rod Dreher for his legitimate criticisms of the Catholic episcopocracy's abyssmal failure to protect the innocent during the clerical sex-abuse crisis? How many Catholics eviserated Dreher essentially for asking the question in his Wall Street Journal commentary that no other Catholic dared ask: Why does Pope John Paul II spend so much time on Iraq and so little on a crisis that challenges the Church's fundamental moral credibility?

I'll tell you why: A cult of personality has developed around the late pope that wishes to immunize him from all legitimate criticism. That is allegiance to the Church as insitution, not to Christ.

I can give you the name of one man who has led the way in bashing Dreher: Kevin Miller, a professor of theology at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio. If a man holding such a position can engage in slanderous behavior, what can other supposedly less-educated "orthodox" Catholics do?

Loyalty to Christ and His Church, bill912, means defending the innocent. That's what God wants. Loyalty to Christ and His Church, bill912, means supporting the principles of justice enunciated in Scripture. That's what the Church is failing to do with its revisionist attitude toward capital punishment -- and many lay Catholics who claim to be loyal and obedient to Christ are allowing Church officals to hoodwink them on this issue.

You know what I'm saying is the truth, bill912.

Posted by: Joseph D'Hippolito | Dec 29, 2006 1:34:58 PM

Erick,

Bro. Cadfael-
Maybe I'm in the wrong here, but I thought that according to your theology, only Rome was the infallible interpreter of Scripture!.

Let's be clear what we're talking about here. When the Magisterium posits a definitive interpretation of Scripture, it is infallible. Further, only the Magisterium has that authority. You are correct in those assertions, but they have no application to what we're talking about.

The Magisterium has, in fact, infallibly defined very few passages of Scripture. And I am relying on no such infallible definitions or interpretations here.

What I am saying is that when you consider Sacred Scripture apart from anything the Church has to say about it, without resorting to any infallible interpretations, you find substantial evidence of the authority provided to the Church.

Same analysis for Tradition.

The fact that Rome can infallibly interpret Scripture and Tradition does not mean that my arguments are based on any such infallible interpretations. The support of Scripture and Tradition for the authority of the Chuch can be seen quite plainly without the Magisterium's input.

I agree with you to this point. If the Magisterium's infallible interpretation were required to support the Magisterium's infallibility, the logic would be hopelessly circular. But the conclusion you reach is based on a false premise.

Posted by: Brother Cadfael | Dec 29, 2006 1:39:57 PM

Dr. Eric-
"Tradition is also God-Breathed".
Says who?.- are You your own authority for this statement?.

Posted by: erick | Dec 29, 2006 1:41:00 PM

Bro. Cadfael-
We disagree!.

Posted by: erick | Dec 29, 2006 1:43:31 PM

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." -2 Thessalonians 2:14

If God wanted him to write this, then what St. Paul said is true. Therefore we have to hold onto the Oral Traditions that St. Paul handed down to us.

I never say anything on my own authority.

Posted by: Dr. Eric | Dec 29, 2006 1:47:21 PM

Joseph,

A cult of personality has developed around the late pope that wishes to immunize him from all legitimate criticism.

In order to be legitimate, criticism should be based on facts. To suggest that the late Holy Father did not anguish over the abuse of children is nonsensical. It is certainly not factual.

There is certain arrogance and pride that assumes one knows all of the relevant facts regarding a situation based on what the media provides. Who are you (or who is Rod) to suggest that you know what Pope John Paul II was doing behind the scenes?

I know that Rod anguished over this matter, and I know that he is sincere in his beliefs. But much of his criticism reminds me of the after-the-fact criticisms of Pope Pius XII and how he did "nothing" to stop the Holocaust.

It is our Christian duty (one I will be the first to admit I do not always remember) to assume the good motives of another. That is certainly no less true with the Holy Father, where it is a virtual lock that you (and Rod) have only a fraction of the relevant information.

I am not familiar with what you have termed slanderous remarks by Kevin Miller. If he has in fact slandered Rod, he should be held to account for it. But if he has simply pointed out the error of Rod's ways -- which is an objective fact -- that is not slander.

You know what I'm saying is the truth, bill912.

I can't speak for bill912, but I see very little truth in your post Joseph.

Posted by: Brother Cadfael | Dec 29, 2006 1:53:37 PM

Dr.Eric-
I fail to see where Tradition is reffered to as "Theopneustos" in that particular passage!.

Posted by: erick | Dec 29, 2006 1:58:41 PM

Joseph D'Hippolito,

As those episodes, which are scattered throughout the Gospels, illustrate, religious authorities who have received their commission from God can become radically and fundamentally corrupt.

But Christ still says to do as they say and not as they do. We are all fallen sinners and Christ still died for us. He chose fallen men, the apostles, Peter who would deny Him and yet He still sent them forth with His authority. Fallen men today still have that authority and will till the end of time, even if you reject it.

It is always about authority.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Posted by: Inocencio | Dec 29, 2006 2:10:36 PM

erick,

Sacred Scripture came from Sacred Tradition just as Dr. Eric pointed out. Christ commanded the Apostles to teach not write which they did long before the canon of Sacred Scripture was set.

Sacred Scripture says if your brother sins against you take it to the Church, why? Because it also says the house of the living God, the Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth. It is the Church that has the authority to bind and loose. St. John makes it clear that all that Christ said and did would fill the world with books if it were written down. It is to the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would come to guide to all Truth and all that Christ said.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Sacred Scripture makes all of this clear.

Open any phone book and look under churches to see what Sola Scriptura has done to Christianity.

Posted by: Inocencio | Dec 29, 2006 2:20:21 PM

Inocencio-
It is plain from the context of Scripture that when Crist says to do as they say-- he contends that this is in-so far as what they say aligns with "the law"-ie. Scripture.
The rest of your posting I agree 100%.

Posted by: erick | Dec 29, 2006 2:24:01 PM

Inocencio-
Open the pages of any book on the history of civilization and see what "sola ecclesia" has done!.

Posted by: erick | Dec 29, 2006 2:26:52 PM

erick,

Then you agree that it is always about authority?

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Posted by: Inocencio | Dec 29, 2006 2:28:19 PM

Inocencio-
We agree!......

Posted by: erick | Dec 29, 2006 2:30:26 PM

"Sola ecclesia?" There's a new one! Erick has a vivid imagination, to say the least!

Posted by: bill912 | Dec 29, 2006 2:30:38 PM

erick,

Then it is ok in your understanding that protestants can contradict each other while still claiming to teach from the bible alone?

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Posted by: Inocencio | Dec 29, 2006 2:31:31 PM

Inocencio-
In essentials...unity!
In non essentials...understanding
In everything else...love!.

Posted by: erick | Dec 29, 2006 2:33:47 PM

bill912,

What erick won't acknowledge is that Catholics are Sola Dei Verbum.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Posted by: Inocencio | Dec 29, 2006 2:34:45 PM

Open the pages of any book on the history of civilization and see what "sola ecclesia" has done!.

Assuming that you (wrongly) use "sola ecclesia" to refer to the Catholic Church, which "history" are you referring to?

The spread of the Gospel throughout the world?
The proliferation of universities and centers of learning?
The care of the poor, sick, and disadvantaged?

If so, yes, you are correct that the Catholic Church is responsible for many great things!

Posted by: Brother Cadfael | Dec 29, 2006 2:35:56 PM

erick,

Yes, I have read St. Augustine as well. The quotation is usually "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity".

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Posted by: Inocencio | Dec 29, 2006 2:37:30 PM

Erick,

In essentials...unity!
In non essentials...understanding
In everything else...love!.

You agree, I assume, that for this to make any sense at all, the people who are supposed to be unified have to agree on what is essential.

There is virtually nothing (not even what you might regard as essential) about which you can find complete unaninimty within denominations (or non-denominations) that consider themselves protestant or generically Christian.

Posted by: Brother Cadfael | Dec 29, 2006 2:40:32 PM

Erick,

Would you agree that if St. Augustine regarding something as "essential" then it is something you should be united with him on?

I recognize that you and I might disagree on what he regarded as essential, but I'm wondering whether you would agree with the former statement if it could be shown.

Posted by: Brother Cadfael | Dec 29, 2006 2:43:39 PM

Bro. Cadfael-
Unlike many who are Protestant and post here regularly, I won't go in detail as to explain what I meant by opening the books on the history of civilization for the evidence of what I believe "sola ecclesia" has not only condoned, but practiced in the past.
Be that as it may- you may be surprised that I don't consider any "Father" of the Church free from error.
So whenever I encounter discussions about Luther et al- I take it with a grain of salt, knowing fully well I don't agree with their positions as one hundred per cent.
They were fallible just as I am--although I am more fallible than they (for sure).
If St. Augustine regarded something as "essential" which does not align with Scripture (Is-8:20)- then It stands as nought.

Posted by: erick | Dec 29, 2006 3:29:32 PM

Erick,

If St. Augustine regarded something as "essential" which does not align with Scripture (Is-8:20)- then It stands as nought.

Isn't your quotation of St. Augustine, then, quite meaningless? There is no unity about essentials if there is no agreement on what is, in fact essential.

Be that as it may- you may be surprised that I don't consider any "Father" of the Church free from error.

You may be more surprised to learn that I don't consider any "Father" of the Church free from error!

My point is simply this. Augustine's maxim makes sense where there is an objective authority determining what is or is not essential. It does not make sense where everyone is "free" to determine for themselves what is true.

The Bible is authoritative, and you will certainly (I'm guessing) state that it is a sufficient objective authority. But the problem (for the maxim) is that it is not necessarily evident what is "essential" from Scripture.

Case in point, Scripture plainly says that baptism is necessary for salvation. Yet most (not all) protestants would say that baptism is not essential.

My "beef" is not so much with your position of "sola scriptura" (I do have a "beef" with it, I'm just not addressing it right now), but with your invocation of St. Augustine's maxim, "in essentials unity." Again, if there is no agreement on what is essential, there can be no unity on essentials.

Posted by: Brother Cadfael | Dec 29, 2006 3:41:51 PM

From Phillip Blosser:

Nor will it do to fall back on the assertion that Protestant conservatives, at least, are united on “essentials”; for the question as to what is “essential” and what is not, is itself part of what is at issue. Lutherans consider baptism essential, while Quakers do not. Baptists consider an “adult” profession of faith to be an essential prerequisite for baptism, while Presbyterians do not. Presbyterians consider the predestination of the elect to be an essential doctrine but Free Methodists do not. Nazarenes consider personal holiness an essential prerequisite for salvation, while Lutherans do not. Calvinists consider the “irresistability of grace” an essential belief, while Lutherans do not. Episcopalians consider sacraments essential, but the Salvation Army does not. Presbyterians regard the belief in the “total depravity” of man essential, but Methodists do not. The Dutch Reformed consider creeds and confessions essential, but Baptists do not. Baptists consider “altar calls” essential but Presbyterians do not. (Not by Faith Alone.)

As far as Scripture being God-Breathed, we all agree on that, but nowhere in Scripture does it say that there are no other God-Breathed sources of authority. Actually, Our Lord does say that oral speach is God-Breathed:

"Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed."
-1 Thessalonians 2:13

"But when they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what to speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what to speak. For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you."
-St. Matthew 10:19-20

"Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said to them: Ye princes of the people, and ancients, hear: If we this day are examined concerning the good deed done to the infirm man, by what means he hath been made whole: Be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God hath raised from the dead, even by him this man standeth here before you whole."
-Acts 4:8-10

Posted by: Dr. Eric | Dec 29, 2006 3:47:12 PM

"Be that as it may- you may be surprised that I don't consider any "Father" of the Church free from error."

Neither do Catholics, erick.

Only the popes (when speaking excathedra) and councils enjoy that charism, and THEN only when speaking on matters of faith or morals. Did you not know that?

Pope Benedict's thoughts on, say, art history - while I would find them very interesting, I'm sure - might be as fallible as mine.

Posted by: Tim J. | Dec 29, 2006 3:53:46 PM

Bro. Cadfael-
You stance on sola ecclesia is again redundant!.
Augustine's quote DOES make sense--- the authority as to what is essential comes directly from Sola Scriptura.
None of the things mentioned above make any sense.
I have myself noted here on this site many points of views regarding the meaning of what the Pope said on this and that---some of it pretty heated at times.
We could never have a meaningful discussion as to what is essential because you deny sola scriptura--as I deny sola ecclesia.
Tim J-
"Only the Popes (when speaking excathedra)and councils enjoy..(being infallible)...did you know that?".
Yes I did!.
Dr Eric-
..."but nowhere in Scripture does it say that there are no other God-Breathed sources of authority."
Are you then arguing from silence?---I can prove anything that way!.
How about discussing what the Scriptures DO say?.

Posted by: erick | Dec 29, 2006 4:12:27 PM

Erick,

Dr. Eric...How about discussing what the Scriptures DO say?.

He did Erick, why won't you?

Tim J-
"Only the Popes (when speaking excathedra)and councils enjoy..(being infallible)...did you know that?".
Yes I did!.

Then why are you arguing as if we believe that all Church Fathers are free from all error?

You stance on sola ecclesia is again redundant!.
Augustine's quote DOES make sense--- the authority as to what is essential comes directly from Sola Scriptura.

I don't have a stance on sola ecclesia -- other than it is wrong. You have not addressed how any two people can have unity on "essentials" if they don't agree what the "essentials" are.

I have myself noted here on this site many points of views regarding the meaning of what the Pope said on this and that---some of it pretty heated at times.

Most of the discussion you refer to is with people who refuse to accept the authority of the Magisterium or the Pope. (Or they will pick and choose which Popes they regard as authoritative --the most blatantly illogical position.) For those that regard Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium as authoritative, there is, in fact, little disagreement about what is "essential."

Posted by: Brother Cadfael | Dec 29, 2006 4:23:19 PM

The invention of "sola ecclesia", the attribution of that invention as a teaching of the Church, and the attack on the invention reminds me of the 17th Century book, "Roman Antichrist", by Andreas Helwig. He invented a title for the pope: "Vicarius Filii Dei(Vicar of the Son of God)". Helwig then showed how the letters of this title, using the numerical values of the Romans, add up to 666. He then used this made-up title--one the popes have never used--to show that the pope is the anti-Christ. I give him a B+ for inventiveness; and an F for scholarship.

Posted by: bill912 | Dec 29, 2006 4:25:23 PM

Alright, thus sayeth the Scriptures:

"Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day." -St. John 6:54-55

The Scripture is plain, you must eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood to have Everlasting Life.

"Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation." -2 Peter 1:20

"And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction." -2 Peter 3:15-16

30,000 different interpreters have twisted the Scriptures to their own destruction... are you one of them? How would you know?

I'm going home now.

Da Pobachennya!

Posted by: Dr. Eric | Dec 29, 2006 4:28:06 PM

Bro. Cadfael-
I'm surprised at how blind you are!!!!!???-
Did Dr. Eric address something the Bible said by alluding to something it does not??????....read the post again Bro. Cadfael!.
"You have not addressed how any two people can have unity on "essentials" if they don't agree what the essentials are"-
Ok- Bro. Cadfael---give me an example!.
" there is in fact little disagreement about what is "essential"--- explain "little disagreement".

Posted by: erick | Dec 29, 2006 4:32:57 PM

Erick -

Clearly we are spinning our wheels, here.

You or I may screw up royally in our understanding of the faith, but all Christians together - through time and space - can not. This is the teaching of the Church on the matter, in a nutshell. Safety in numbers.

Lean not to your own understanding, but trust in the power of the Holy Spirit in ALL your bretheren (and "sisteren"). This requires humility and submission... not exactly earmarks of the modern spirit.

You have the right to interpret the Bible ANY WAY YOU LIKE - but you just do not have ANY authority to proclaim that your understanding of scripture = Christian doctrine. That authority belongs to the Church (all of us together). Who has been given the authority to speak for ALL of us? The popes and the councils, not every lone-wolf exegete that comes down the pike.

I just read Acts last night, and ecclesial authority is all over the place... you can't move without bumping into it. Show me in the Bible where it teaches that this authority died with the Apostles. Every indication of scripture is otherwise.

Posted by: Tim J. | Dec 29, 2006 4:34:20 PM

Dr Eric-
2pet1:20, could apply to Rome, couldn't it?- and if not, why?.

Posted by: erick | Dec 29, 2006 4:35:26 PM

Tim J-
You read Acts?-- good!.
Now show me where this "authority" included the sole pointificate at Rome!.

Posted by: erick | Dec 29, 2006 4:39:16 PM

"2pet1:20, could apply to Rome, couldn't it?- "

That passage speaks to exactly what I was talking about. What interpretation do we trust? The PUBLIC interpretation - the one we have ALL made together - not our own and not that of some teacher of novelties like Luther.

Any private interpretation can go horribly wrong. The pope and the councils alone have the authority to articulate PUBLIC interpretation, formed by the sensus fidelum and the ordinary magisterium of the Church.

Posted by: Tim J. | Dec 29, 2006 5:05:38 PM

"Now show me where this "authority" included the sole pointificate at Rome!."

I'm not particular about Rome, but I don't see any other candidates for the Seat of Peter.

let me see...

"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Was Jesus talking to someone else, here? Did he command another to feed his sheep? Not that I expect you to be open to the possibility, but there it is, in black and white.

Posted by: Tim J. | Dec 29, 2006 5:13:35 PM

Lets leave the Pope out of it for a second... are you saying you accept the authority of the bishops and the councils?

Posted by: Tim J. | Dec 29, 2006 5:24:31 PM

Erick,

Bro. Cadfael-
I'm surprised at how blind you are!!!!!???-
Did Dr. Eric address something the Bible said by alluding to something it does not??????....read the post again Bro. Cadfael!.

Perhaps it is you who needs some glasses, my friend. Check out Dr. Eric's post of 3:47 pm.

"You have not addressed how any two people can have unity on "essentials" if they don't agree what the essentials are"-
Ok- Bro. Cadfael---give me an example!.

I did. Check out my post of 3:41 pm (immediately preceding Dr. Eric's). You can also check out his 3:47 post again, as he provides numerous additional examples of "essentials" upon which there is uniform disagreement among non-Catholic Christians.

" there is in fact little disagreement about what is "essential"--- explain "little disagreement". This was in reference to my statement that there is "little disagreement" among those who regard Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium as authoritative. For example, then, such Catholics would all agree: that Christ is Truly Present in the Eucharist, that the seven sacraments of the Church are efficacious, that Mary is the Theotokos (Mother of God), immaculately conceived and assumed, body and soul into heaven. In short, what the Church proposes as infallibly true (which would include, of course, essential truths that many (but not all) protestants would agree with, too, such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection of the Body, etc.), is accepted by all such persons as true.

There may be disagreement about what this or that doctrine means at the edges, but there is agreement on the fact of the doctrine. You simply cannot say this about Protestantism.

Posted by: Brother Cadfael | Dec 29, 2006 8:54:22 PM

It is plain from the context of Scripture that when Crist says to do as they say-- he contends that this is in-so far as what they say aligns with "the law"-ie. Scripture.

Therefore you must do everything they tell you to do . . .

That's plain. Unfortunately, it's plainly the opposite of what you assert.

Posted by: Mary | Dec 29, 2006 9:08:59 PM

Mary-
???.... what?.
Bro. Cadfael-
You are still blind!.
I was referring to Dr. eric's post where he states that nowhere in the Bible does it say that there are no other God Breathed sources (3:47:12-pm)- that is an argument from silence!.
The Bible neither says that there are not other Popes !- that's how ridiculous that statement is to me!--- but obviously not to you.
Your posting of 3:41pm is irrevelant to the discussion because you are comparing Roman doctrine(Baptism saves), with Protestant doctrine(Baptism does not save).
We are obviously going to disagree .
I thought the point you were trying to make was that of "inconsistencies" WITHIN PROTESTANTISM'S view of what is essential, the 30.000+ denominations (remember?), in which case I still await an example.

Posted by: erick | Dec 29, 2006 10:51:27 PM

See Dr. Eric's post, above: 12/29, 3:47PM

Posted by: bill912 | Dec 30, 2006 2:25:43 AM

Catholics love to attack protestants for their supposed defective view of the Bible or its interpretation.

But where are the Catholic equivalents to protestant work such as Craig Blomberg's Historical Reliability of the Gospels or Kenneth Kitchen's On the Reiability of the Old Testament?

Posted by: Jeb Protestant | Dec 30, 2006 6:46:02 AM

Bill912-
See St. Matthew's post 15:14.

Posted by: erick | Dec 30, 2006 10:35:53 AM

Jeb Protestant, well put.

But Christ still says to do as they say and not as they do. We are all fallen sinners and Christ still died for us. He chose fallen men, the apostles, Peter who would deny Him and yet He still sent them forth with His authority. Fallen men today still have that authority and will till the end of time, even if you reject it.

It is always about authority.

No, it's not about authority, Inocencio. It's about truth. It's about morality. It's about ethics. It's about human decency. It's about humility. Christ demanded that those who hold power in his name act in a manner that displays those tendencies. I suggest you read Chapter 14 of St. John's Gospel, or any of St. Paul's suggestions to St. Timothy concerning the type of people who are fit for church leadership.

The fact that Church leaders are fallen sinners does not dismiss the necessity for accountability, as you imply. Yet all too many Catholics are willing to let church leaders skate by merely because they hold leadership positions.

Inocencio, you are the perfect example of the type of Catholic I described earlier who confuses loyalty to ecclesiastical bureaucracy with faith in Christ.

Do you seriously believe that St. Peter -- a simple, blunt man -- would have tolerated or put up with the nonsense excused in his name?

Posted by: Joseph D'Hippolito | Dec 30, 2006 11:29:30 AM

Joseph D'Hippolito-
"Inocencio, you are the perfect example of a Catholic I described earlier who confuses loyalty to ecclesiastical bureaucracy with faith in Christ".
Exellent definition as to what "sola ecclesia" leads to!!!.

Posted by: erick | Dec 30, 2006 11:45:34 AM

Now to you, Brother Cadfael:

To suggest that the late Holy Father did not anguish over the abuse of children is nonsensical. It is certainly not factual.

As C.S. Lewis so eloquently said, a downcast countenance is not a moral disinfectant. I have no doubt that JPII felt extreme personal anguish over the abuse of children. But it's nothing but narcissistic for someone with tremendous pastoral authority not to go beyond personal anguish when the innocent are betrayed. He has a responsibility to God and his Church to act and act decisively.

There is certain arrogance and pride that assumes one knows all of the relevant facts regarding a situation based on what the media provides. Who are you (or who is Rod) to suggest that you know what Pope John Paul II was doing behind the scenes?

All we know is what we see -- and what the world saw was a man who spent more time criticizing American intervention in Iraq and canonizing saints than addressing the moral failings of his own church.

In 2002, when the crisis in Boston broke, JPII was in Toronto for World Youth Day. He refused to see a delegation of Canadian abuse victims. Instead of flying to Boston to console the afflicted, reassure the faithful and confront the misfeasant -- in short, instead of performing his fundamental pastoral duties -- he remained on his precious itinerary and went to Guatemala to canonize two more saints. And Boston ain't that far from Toronto, certainly not as far as Guatemala is.

I know that Rod anguished over this matter, and I know that he is sincere in his beliefs. But much of his criticism reminds me of the after-the-fact criticisms of Pope Pius XII and how he did "nothing" to stop the Holocaust.

Making such an equation is nonsense. Pius XII could do little to stop the Holocaust because the Holocaust was led by secular authorities over whom he had little (if any) control and absolutely no authority (and who would reject that authority if he tried to exercise it). The clerical sex-abuse crisis, however, was aided and abetted by bishops whom JPII appointed and over whom he had direct authority. He failed to execute his authority responsibly.

To my way of thinking, JPII was no less malfeasant than Eli, the high priest in I Samuel 2-4. Eli let his sons (also priests) steal sacrifices in the Tabernacle and encourage religious prostitution. They were totally corrupt. Yet Eli did nothing but verbally reprimand his sons -- much like JPII verbally reprimanded his American bishops. Do you think God was satisfied? Read I Samuel and get back to me.

It is our Christian duty (one I will be the first to admit I do not always remember) to assume the good motives of another. That is certainly no less true with the Holy Father, where it is a virtual lock that you (and Rod) have only a fraction of the relevant information.

It's also our Christian duty, Brother Cadfael, to defend the innocent from predators. In fact, I'd say that's more of a duty than assuming someone's good motives. Besides, where does it say in Scripture that we have to assume anyone's good motives? All Christians are called upon to be "wise as serpents yet innocents as doves," as Christ Himself said. Being wise, among other things, means looking at the facts on the ground and placing those facts into context.

The fact is that JPII did nothing to stop the wholesale abuse of children. If you don't believe me, then as yourself why is Roger Mahony still the archbishop of Los Angeles?

Posted by: Joseph D'Hippolito | Dec 30, 2006 11:45:50 AM

Joe-

Are you arguing that because (as you assert) JPII "did nothing" to deal with the priest abuse crisis that this makes him... what, not the pope? Or do you just reject the idea of the ecclesial authority altogether and find the abuse crisis to be as handy a stick as anything?

Christ established the authority of the Catholic hierarchy. In rejecting the authority of His church you are rejecting Him.

"It's about truth. It's about morality. It's about ethics. It's about human decency. It's about humility."

Exactly. All under the headship of Christ... WHO ESTABLISHED THE CHURCH. Humility? Where is the humility in being your own pope? Anyone can do that. You are too focused on your own truth and on the ethics and morality of others.

Posted by: Tim J. | Dec 30, 2006 12:24:35 PM

Amen, Tim.

Posted by: