Is Tradition still necessary?

Should we continue to "go to the Jews" today to get "more tradition" since it was really THEY who gave the first century NT church its OT - its SCRIPTURE (IF we ignore the sovereignty of God option) - and so it was also THEY (Messianic Jewish Christians) who gave the first century OT church the NT letters?

IF so - then Messianic Jews are "tops" should we CONTINUE to go to them for "more tradition"?

This is a very good question posted on this thread?

Hmmm - tradition of the Jews? Do we STILL need it?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hmm...I doubt we consider it the same way.

Could there be internal and external evidence?

Just not to the extent you do. Of course, then we get into why should I acknowledge the RCC's authority, but that is for a whole other thread.

What do you want me to do? Lie to you? I don't expect that from you.

That doesn't make sense. That is an oxymoron. Something that is an allusion is not explicit.

And He did. There are many places, if you care for me to list them. Good try, but the Mary issue and Christ's divinity are not even on the same playing field.

Well, then don't ever expect me to elevate tradition to the level of Scripture. It seems to me pretty common sense. One is said to be God-breathed, the other isn't. Thus one is our bottom line source of truth.

No, that is not why I know for sure. Technically, I don't know for sure. I accept it by faith. Another thing, most of the NT canon was recognized by the 2nd century by Irenaus (with the exception of Philemon and 3 John, I believe). This is not the RCC's tradition. I accept it because of the witness of the early Christians and the evidence from the writings of Scripture itself. Just from the testimony of NT writers we can determine the majority of what was considered Scripture during the NT time. (Peter bears witness to Paul's writings, Paul Luke's, etc.) This is not an RCC tradition. Of course, I know that you will disagree with when the RCC came about, but that is another thread.

No I don't! I don't accept the Apocrypha. Also, see my above response. I accept the early Christian witness and the evidence from the books themselves, not the RCC's word for it.

Huh? Because I am not a RC.

Are you willing to say that God's Word, breathed out by Him, had to come about just by a group of men recognizing it? Would it not be God-breathed had it not been 'recognized' by these early leaders? Is that what makes it God-breathed?

In the Lord Jesus Christ,
Neal

P.S. I probably won't be responding much more because I have a ton of reading to do and papers to work on for my summer class!

 

Hi Neal,

In the same way that you judge whether your received New Testament canon is truth: on authority | Hmm...I doubt we consider it the same way.suppl

However you consider it, you must rely upon decisons made by humans. You can say that you're rubber-stamping their decision without saying the word "authority", but the substance of what you are doing, in effect is "accepting something on another's authority".

How do you know Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, and Luke wrote Luke? | Could there be internal and external evidence?

The external evidence would be Tradition, and there is no internal evidence as to who wrote these Gospels. From the nature of your own question, you obviously haven't judged that the Gospels are canonical from such evidence. You've accepted them without reservation.

And because you simply 'disagree', you and I go our separate ways. That's the Spirit of Protestantism. | What do you want me to do? Lie to you? I don't expect that from you.

I don't expect anything else from you; I'm just stating the bare bones fact about Protestantism. It logically leads to perpetual division and cannot result in unity due to competing authorities.

Something that is an allusion is not explicit.

You're right.. I should have stuck with "implicit" - but something that is stated implicitly makes it no less truly expressed than if it were expressed in an explicit manner; the truth isn't altered, only the means of communication. If I were to say to you, "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!", my conjuring up Jack Nicolson in A Few Good Men is implicit, yet just as true as if I were to say, "Think of Jack Nicolson at the witness stand in A Few Good Men".

And He did. There are many places, if you care for me to list them.

Where does the Bible explicitly say: "God is three persons in one substance"? It doesn't.

Well, then don't ever expect me to elevate tradition to the level of Scripture.

But, Scripture expects for you to and commands you to. Scripture nowhere says, "You shouldn't elevate apostolic tradition to the level of Scripture." Notice: I said "apostolic tradition", not "tradition" as in "traditions of men".

Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached", that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.

This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.

Technically, I don't know for sure [that the Scriptures are actually Scripture]. I accept it by faith.

Yes, but here's the catch: you must place your faith in someone, in some human authority. You accept it, yes, from from whom? Whom do you place your faith in? Ultimately, the answer is God, of course, but God didn't drop the canon in your lap. You received it from men.

Another thing, most of the NT canon was recognized by the 2nd century by Irenaeus (with the exception of Philemon and 3 John, I believe). This is not the RCC's tradition.

And who do you suppose Irenaeus is? A Roman Catholic bishop. I can quote a sufficient amount of his material to demonstrate that this is the case if you disagree as to his clerical status and the Church he adhered to.

I'm also not saying that much of the canon wasn't established before actual particular councils issued decrees. I am saying that there are substantial differentiations between various canons, and that you hold to one definitive canon because you accept the NT canon of the Roman Catholic Church.

I don't accept the Apocrypha.

And in this case, you are relying upon the authority of the Reformers who chose to reject the Deuterocanonicals on the basis of a decision (on the authority of) a post-resurrection Jewish council in Jamnia (90 A.D.). The Deuterocanonicals were included in the canons of the North African synods in the late fourth century, and they were considered canonical by numerous early Christians (albeit not by others).

Marvin Tate, an Old Testament professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote:

“It seems clear that the Protestant position must be judged a failure on historical grounds, insofar as it sought to return to the canon of Jesus and the Apostles. The Apocrypha belongs to this historical heritage of the Church” (“Old Testament Apocalyptica and the Old Testament Canon,” in Review and Expositor 65, 1968, 353).

J.N.D. Kelley writes:

"[The Old Testament] always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deutero-canonical books ... In the first two centuries ... the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas ... Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon, and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary." (Early Christian Doctrine, (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), 53-4).

I accept the early Christian witness and the evidence from the books themselves, not the RCC's word for it.

That's a nice and wonderful response, but it doesn't account for the varying canons in the early Church. It doesn't answer for why you accept 2 Peter, 1 & 2 John, James, Revelation, Hebrews, and Jude, and why you reject the Didache, the Shepherd, the Apostolic Constitutions, the Epistle of Barnabas, 3 Corinthians, and other numerous epistles.

For an extensive list, visit:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

Are you willing to say that God's Word, breathed out by Him, had to come about just by a group of men recognizing it? Would it not be God-breathed had it not been 'recognized' by these early leaders? Is that what makes it God-breathed?

No, the principal cause of divine inspiration is divine authorship. The instrumental cause is human authorship.

The process of Scripture's immediate authorship and the process of determination as to which Scripture is canonical and which is not are two separate processes.

 

Hey Carson,

Just a couple quick responses and then I am pretty much done for the week.

Not quite true. Just off the top of my head, there is internal evidence in Luke's gospel.

You are half right and I am half right. I was responding to Jesus being fully divine and human. You are right on the Trinity. However, the evidence is far greater for it than any of the Mary teachings.

And neither does Scripture say tradition is God-breathed. Seems clear to me, the God-breathed source of truth is the ultimate source. Also, how can you guarantee that the 'traditions' the RCC holds to now are the same as what the apostles taught? Again, the Mary teachings are very difficult for starters.

But men did not make it God's Word.

That's nice and wonderful, but I stand by my response. I am sorry if you do not like it.

But see, I see it as being recognized because it is God's Word, not God's Word because it was recognized.

I knew you would claim that. But anyway, even if we use something that early Christians (not the RCC as we know it) acknowledge, that does not prove the RCC's claim to all kinds of other traditions. Just because I use a NT canon that the RCC does doesn't mean that I should drop everything and submit to it as the almighty authority here on earth. I am not saying that all tradition and early witnesses are bad and to be rejected wholesale. I am saying that I do not simply believe what the RCC says just because it is the RCC.

May the Lord Bless You,
Neal

 

Neal wrote:

When the NT says all Scripture is inspired, it was referring to the OT. The NT has not come to exist yet. Some of the writings had been completed, but not all, and those that were completed were not universally known about in the early churches yet.

However, today, we understand it to refer to the NT scripture as well. It's a reasonable belief, but we must understand that this is a tradition that's implied and tested over time, but not expressly stated biblically.

 

To an extent, yes. But also NT writers referred to other NT writers' work as Scripture (II Peter 3:14-16; I Tim. 5:18 (quotes from Luke 10:7)). Clearly, since II Timothy was written after I Timothy, Paul knew that other things were being considered as Scripture besides just the OT. It is clear that Scripture had taken on a technical sense at an early time in the NT church. Besides, what makes Scripture God-breathed? Because we recognize it? I think not. We only recognize it because it is God-breathed, not the other way around.

God Bless You,
Neal

 

Yes, but how do you know *those* books (2 Peter, 1 Tim) are scripture in the first place?

I disagree a little. Scripture is "God-breathed" whether anyone recognizes it or not. If left entirely to my own investigation, not knowing anything about what anyone else in the world recognizes as scripture and having no formalized canon, would I recognize the canon in the same way I have it in my Bible today? Highly unlikely. It would still be God-breathed, but I doubt I would recognize it on my own. I recognize it not so much because it is God-breathed (which I believe it is), because the early church recognized it and decided it was God-breathed, and passed that decision on to future generations. They, because God was guiding them (because Christ said he'd never leave the church on their own!) decided, using authority (because God was with them and guiding them) to determine what should be in the canon. Scripture itself didn't say what should be in the canon, and thus the authority that determined the canon was NOT "sola-scriptura" (it logically couldn't have been), but the authority of the Church. We *have* to recognize and accept that authority, that tradition, or the canon disintegrates before our Protestant eyes. Troubling, but true.

 

All of you are missing my position!!!!!! I am not totally anti-tradition! I am anti-what some say is tradition now. I have admitted earlier that I rely on the evidence and the testimony of the ECFs as to the canon. I am not going back and rework everything, that would be ludicrous. However, I was pointing out that II Tim. 3:16 referred to more than just the OT at the time, like it or not. If you are going to use it for the OT, you should use it at least for the other NT books that are explicitly referred to as Scripture.

However, I am not totally anti-all tradition. But I do NOT see all tradition as being valid, and definitely not on the level of Scripture. I agree that the Holy Spirit was with the early church. I believe He is still with His church now. But much of what the RCC claims as apostolic tradition is unverifiable at best. And a lot of the credit the RCC wants to claim for itself is not really due to it.

Tradition is useful and should not be rejected wholesale. However, it must be measured. So please, stop acting as though I am anti-tradition just because of the RCC. That may be the easiest way for you to deal with me in your mind, but that is not true.

God Bless,
Neal

 

Sorry Neal, I should have read the thread all the way through, not just the last couple of posts.

 

Even so, is any thing else described as God-breated (when it comes to sources of authority)? If we all agree on Scripture, why not acknowledge that it ALONE is God-breathed. Just because the Church recognized it does not make the Church the authority over it. Men are fallible and depraved. The Scriptures stand and are infallible.

In Christ, THE Word of God,
Neal

 

And exactly who is it that said Scripture is God -breathed.

And if your answer is Scripture, does it make sense that a book could make this claim of itself? If so then why discount The Koran, or the Book of Mormon, if these books were to make this claim? </font>[/QUOTE]BINGO!!!!!

The circular logic is obvious!

You are a new face, Steve!

Welcome to the list of the few Catholics who post here!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


"Gloria in excelsis Deo"

(Intoned by the celebrant of the Mass.)

(The choir response.)

Et in terra pax homininus
bone voluntatis
Laudamus te
Benedicimus te
Adoramus te
Glorificamus te,
Gratias agimus tibi propter
magnum gloriam tuum.
Domine Deus, Rex Coelestis,
Deus Pater omnipotens
Domine Fili unigenite
Jesu Christe Domine Deus
Agnus Dei Filius Patris
Qui tollis peccata mundi
miserere nobis.
Qui tollis peccata mundi,
suscipe deprecationem nostram.
Qui sedes ad dexteramPatris,
miserere nobis.
Quoniam tu solus Sanctus,
Tu solus Dominus
Tu solus Altissimus
Jesu Christe.
Cum Sancto Spiritu
in gloria Dei Patris
Amen.

- The Ambrosian Gloria -


http://www.solesmes.com/sons/gloria.ram

(Real monks chanting....)


Gregorian Chant - God's music!

 

So people are in charge of determining what is true? I can believe that the Scriptures are God-breathed because a group of men tell me it is okay? I think not. I do not accept what a group of bishops or whoever says is true because they say it is true.

As for other books, that is for an entire different thread. Needless to say, these other books can be shown to be inferior and false at times. I am sure there are many good books written on this topic. One of the major reasons I believe the Scriptures is because of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection and the attestation to that. Other faith books do not have that luxury.

Why do you believe the Scriptures, Stephen? Because of a group of men or because of Scripture itself?

In Christ,
Neal </font>[/QUOTE]Here is a good read for you, Neal:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima Christi -

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.

 

Does it matter? Any writing *could* claim it is God-breathed. Self-proclaiming inspiration on it's own does not mean it is or isn't. It is or it isn't regardless of what it itself says.

I think for the simple fact that we have no reason to believe this, not even from scripture itself. Scripture says it is God-breated, but it doesn't say it ALONE is God-breathed.

True. But consider: the church is not "over" it, even in Catholicism. Maybe more like beside it. I think the Catechism says Apostolic Tradition and Scripture are equally authoritative, neither "over" the other. Yes, men are fallible. Yet Jesus gave fallible men authority in other matters, did he not? Why did he do this? Why did he establish a church, and not a book? Why didn't Jesus himself simply produce the scriptures for us before he ascended?

 

Hi Neal,

You wrote, "Not quite true. Just off the top of my head, there is internal evidence in Luke's gospel."

Where?

However, the evidence is far greater for it than any of the Mary teachings.

That's only relatively speaking. As we've seen on this board, it isn't "great enough" for Kelly, Ricky, 3AM, and others.

And neither does Scripture say tradition is God-breathed.

It does not say that, but it does say that Tradition is the word of God.

"And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thess 2:13).

The Word of God is transmitted through Tradition. This portion of the Word isn't inspired, but it is - as theologians call it - animated, for it is living and active in the Church's liturgy by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Seems clear to me, the God-breathed source of truth is the ultimate source.

I wouldn't call Scripture a "source", but a "channel". The source is God's revelation to his People in the course of history, and this revelation comes to us through the channels of Scripture and Tradition. The vast majority of Scripture was written from oral Tradition.

Also, how can you guarantee that the 'traditions' the RCC holds to now are the same as what the apostles taught?

By the fourth mark of the Church: Apostolic succession.

Again, the Mary teachings are very difficult for starters.

I find the Marian teachings to be much less difficult than the Christological and Trinitarian teachings. 3 persons within God? The omnipotent, omniscient, God of the universe becomes a Man?

The Marian teachings are much less difficult than this. We're talking about a woman who is preserved from the stain of Original Sin (i.e. conceived in a state of grace), a woman who is assumed body and soul into heaven (like other saints before her), and a woman who didn't have sex. These dogmas are amazingly less difficult than the proposal that GOD became a little frail fetus or that there is plurality within the one Lord of the Universe.

But see, I see it as being recognized because it is God's Word, not God's Word because it was recognized.

And I don't either. The canonization process is not the efficient cause of the divine authorship of Scripture. I never claimed otherwise.

But anyway, even if we use something that early Christians (not the RCC as we know it) acknowledge, that does not prove the RCC's claim to all kinds of other traditions.

The faith can't be "proved" in any manner. It can only be given credibility; that is why it is called "the faith".

Just because I use a NT canon that the RCC does doesn't mean that I should drop everything and submit to it as the almighty authority here on earth.

Of course not. It only means that you already accept the Catholic Church as an authority with regard to your canon, implicitly.. as you do regarding your interpretation of Scripture, esp. with regard to Christology and Theology, as evinced by the other heretics on this board who deny these dogmas from Scripture because they don't view Scripture through a Catholic lens, that is, from the implicit recognition of the Catholic authority by accepting the Catholic tradition as the lens through which to interpret Scripture.

I am not saying that all tradition and early witnesses are bad and to be rejected wholesale.

Then, you're saying that that some tradition and early witness is to be rejected wholesale, because that is what you do in practice when it comes to the Sacraments, esp. with regard to baptism.

I am saying that I do not simply believe what the RCC says just because it is the RCC.

And you shouldn't. You should believe what it says because of Scripture and History - those elements that point to the Church's authority.

 

You totally missed my point. I am not talking about ANY writing. I am talking about as Christians we believe the Bible is the Word of God. Is there any other source given to us from the Bible that is said to be God-breathed? Remember, I am assuming that as a Christian you believe the Bible is the Word of God. Going off of that assumption, is there any other source that is God-breathed?

You can infer and believe whatever you want. But ONLY Scripture is called God-breathed, like it or not. Anything outside of that is pure speculation as to whether it is God-breathed or not because we are not told. Until I am told, I will not hold those other things to the same level of authority.

I am not God, why don't you ask Him? Yes, Christ established the church. But if you read through the Scriptures what is authoritative? God's Word. There has to be an unchanging authority. If not, one generation can change what is true and then the next and so on and so on.

God Bless You,
Neal

 

Carson Weber said, 'It does not say that, but it does say that Tradition is the word of God.'

Our best ministry comes when we follow Christ and not the traditions of men, systems of theology, or the ecclesiastical churches. I think that the Lord would be pleased if we all got back to the Bible, the Word of God.

Here are exacting words about what God says about human tradition, and it absolutely does not say that our ecclesiastical traditions greatly please Him, nor are they synonymous with the Word of God. Notice Colossians 2:8:

'Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world,and not after Christ.'

 

Read through Luke, Acts, and Paul's writings. Then go back and read Luke and see if there are clues as to who wrote the book. You should already be familiar with this. No, there is no where that says, "I, Luke, wrote this book." I said there is evidence. You know, like you say there is evidence for all these Mary doctrines.

Okay. And? I didn't say everyone would believe it. I am sure these others DO NOT believe the Mary doctrines either. I simply said the evidence was greater than the evidence for all the Mary teachings. I didn't say everyone would accept it. That is your thinking hoisted on my statement. Also, Kelly and 3AM are the same person.

Ahh...but here is the kicker. How do you know what the RCC teaches as 'tradition' is what Paul is talking of here? You don't. There is no way all your Mary 'tradition' is what Paul has in mind here. If so, I would think it would be more prominent in the written God-breathed Word.

Bad choice of words, but I still stand by my point.

Ah yes, claim authority and then use that authority so support you claim of authority.

Funny, the evidence is amazingly less available for this amazingly simple teaching. Sorry, I don't buy it.

Good. We agree!

Huh? I don't think I said anything of this sort. But see, I don't see the credibility for some of the 'traditions' of the RCC. Let's use Mary again. I have to take that on a blind leap. I am not willing to do that. I believe faith is reasonable.

No, not really. I don't see the RCC there in the second century. I know, you will disagree.

Umm...no. Just because we have some doctrines in common don't mean I accept any authority of the RCC. The RCC did not come up with the truth. I accept the authority of God and His revealed truth.

What is your hang-up on this? I have been baptized. No worries! Besides, that is not what has given me life. Only the Father has through Christ.

Not really. I don't see the RCC as it.

Now, since you like to try to lessen my faith in the Word of God, where did the church get its authority? I know, you will say through Christ. But hey, since you like to play this game with the Bible, any group, and in fact many do, claim that they get their authority from God. Why should I believe the RCC? On what do you stand to show your authority as a church? Where do you even get that idea? A couple of guys wrote it down? So? There are many who do that now. I could do that now. How do you know the RCC is it? What justifies you putting your faith in the RCC?

May the Lord Jesus Be With You,
Neal

 

Hi Neal,

The title of Luke's Gospel comes from Tradition, and we know that it was authored by Luke the physician who accompanied Paul by way of Tradition.

How do you know what the RCC teaches as 'tradition' is what Paul is talking of here?

In the same way that we know the canon to be authentic, that Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father, and that the three persons of the Godhead share the same substance and are equal.. because of the fourth mark of the Church, apostolic succession.

Ah yes, claim authority and then use that authority so support you claim of authority.

No, the authority is is not backed simply by authority; it is backed by Scripture and History. I can give you a couple of titles, if you are interested that demonstrate this, without appealing to the authority of the Magisterium; one of which is Upon This Rock by Stephen K. Ray, published by Ignatius Press.

Funny, the evidence is amazingly less available for this amazingly simple teaching.

Well, Genesis 3:15 is a prophesy of Mary's sinlessness, her response to the Angel Gabriel is an indication of her vow of virginity, and her appearance as the ark of the New Covenant and the archetype of the Church, the New Israel, in heaven in Revelation 12 is indicative of her bodily assumption.

The evidence is there in Scripture.

I don't see the credibility for some of the 'traditions' of the RCC. Let's use Mary again. I have to take that on a blind leap.

No, you don't, as I demonstrated above.

I believe faith is reasonable.

Every Catholic would agree with you; John Paul II wrote a beautiful encyclical on the harmony between faith and reason in his Encyclical Fides et Ratio.

I don't see the RCC there in the second century.

What do you see in the second century then?

Just because we have some doctrines in common don't mean I accept any authority of the RCC. The RCC did not come up with the truth. I accept the authority of God and His revealed truth.

Neal, the faith is historical. The doctrines you learned in Sunday School were hammered out in the Church's ecumenical councils; you didn't learn them from interpreting the Bible for yourself. First, you learned the doctrines, then you interpreted the Scripture in the light of the dogma you had been instructed in. That is what we call "reading Scripture through the lens of tradition". Because these orthodox dogmas were hammered out by Catholic Councils, you read Scripture on the authority of the Catholic Church, albeit implicitly.

What is your hang-up on this? I have been baptized.

I'm not speaking as to whether you've been baptized. I'm speaking of whether baptism is the sacrament of regeneration by which one is born again, born of water and the Spirit.

Now, since you like to try to lessen my faith in the Word of God, where did the church get its authority?

I am not lessening your faith in the word of God by any means. If anything, I am increasing that faith because I am demonstrating the firm foundation upon which Scripture stands. Without the Church, you don't even know if most of what you're reading in the New Testament is Scripture; it could very well be apocrypha.

The Magisterium of the Catholic Church got its authority from Jesus Christ. See Matthew 16:16-19 and Matthew 18:18. Binding and loosing were terms denoting rabbinical authority: the authority to teach and discipline.

As well, the Magisterium received authority in Matthew 28:18-20 when Jesus commissioned the apostles whom he had formed during his three year public ministry.

any group, and in fact many do, claim that they get their authority from God.

I do not know of any other religious body that claims to be the one Church of Jesus Christ with apostolic succession reaching back to the apostles. Not even the Eastern Orthodox make that claim.

Take out the Almanac and look up the Catholic Church. It's a secular source. We can document the apostolic succession of the Catholic Church; it's in the history books. We have evidence, not just a pure claim. That's why I said turn to Scripture and History.

The office of Pope was founded on the words of Christ: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [which means a rock], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" ( Matthew xvi, 18). The attention of every historian has been attracted by the endurance of the Papacy through centuries that have seen the downfall of every other European institution that existed when the Papacy arose, and of a number of others that have originated and fallen, while it continued t flourish. The Roman Catholic offers these facts as evidence that the Church is not merely a human institution, but that it is built "upon a rock," (The World Book Encyclopedia © 1940, Page 5730 Volume13)

"St. Peter, of Bethsaida in Galilee, From Christ he received the name of Cepha, an Aramaic name which means rock .Prince of the Apostles, was the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church. He lived first in Antioch and then in Rome for 25 years. In C.E. 64 or 67, he was martyred. St. Linus became the second pope." (National Almanac © 1996)

"ROMAN CATHOLICISM The largest of the Christian denominations is the Roman Catholic church. As an institution it has existed since the 1st century AD, ...the Roman church owes its existence to the life of Jesus Christ in the 1st century AD" (Comptons Encyclopedia ©1995)

(The Catholic) Church... traces an unbroken line of popes from St. Peter in the 1st century AD to the present occupant of the papal throne. During this nearly 2,000-year period there were more than 30 false popes, most notably during the late 14th and early 15th centuries. These men were merely claimants to the position. There have rarely been periods when a genuine pope was not ruling the church. In 1978 John Paul II became the 264th true pope.(Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia © 1996)

By A. D. 100,...Christianity had become an institution headed by a three-rank hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons, who understood themselves to be the guardians of the only "true faith." The majority of churches, among which the church of Rome took a leading role, rejected all other viewpoints as heresy. Deploring the diversity of the earlier movement, Bishop Irenaeus and his followers insisted that there could be only one church, and outside of that church, he declared, "there is no salvation." Members of this church alone are orthodox (literally, "straight-thinking") Christians. And, he claimed, this church must be catholic-- that is, universal.(The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels. Published by Vintage Books. 1994)

Why should I believe the RCC? On what do you stand to show your authority as a church?

First, Christ's words in Sacred Scripture. Secondly, the History that confirms this authority in practice.

Where do you even get that idea?

Scripture.

 

No, I didn't miss your point, but you may have missed mine. 2 Timothy says scripture is God-breathed. How do you know 2 Timothy is scripture, so that you can use the "God-breathed" argument to begin with?

I assume "the word of God" is good enough? Carson pointed out verses that talked about people *hearing* the word of God, and not just reading it.

Does this count?
John 20:22-23 "And when he had said this, he breathed on them [the apostles, the beginnings and leaders of the NT church], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained [giving them authority]."

Why did Jesus breath on them, and breath on them at this time and with these words? What is the significance?

You can infer and believe whatever you want.
</font>[/QUOTE]I am inferring nothing. It simply doesn't say scripture ALONE is God-breathed, as you asserted.

Lately I have been meditating on the OT Israelites. Here's what I'm pondering: Consider the state of their religion, their scriptures and their "authority" when Moses delivered them from Egypt and led them to Caanan, stoping along the way for the 10 commandments, and instructions on how to build the tabernacle, etc. Fast forward a couple thousand years to the Jews at the time of Christ. The Jewish religion looked quite different, it had grown and "changed" (not that initial doctrines were different or contradicted, but that much more in terms of scripture, tradition, rules and regulation, etc. had been addded). There was fallibility in the leadership, even corruption and hypocrisy. Yet it was still the religion that honored and served the true God, and true worshippers existed in that system. What was their "authority"? Scripture only? No, but scripture + tradition. Did Christ condemn their tradition? Only when it went *against* scripture, but not when was only additional to it. In fact, Jesus told the faithful to listen to the scribes and Pharisees (who were fallible, and even rejected Jesus) and to even *do what they said* (Matt 23:2–3). Do you think the only things the Pharisees told people was the 10 commandments? I don't. Yet here is Christ telling the faithful to do whatever the Pharisees told them to do. He didn't exclude tradition, limiting them to "scripture alone". He didn't limit them to the "unchanged" (un-added-to) faith and rules given at Sinai. Why not?

One last thought about "unchanged": Scripture says God is unchanging, and God is with his church, guiding and directing, never leaving them. He obviously was with and guiding the early church, you admit as much with acceptance of the canon. Has God stopped guiding and directing? No, I don't think so. Like you, I'm not ready to accept Catholicism and all that comes with it without question, but I do think there is something ringing true in their general outlook on the Church's role in authority, for the Church is directed by God himself, the ultimate and unchanging authority.

God bless,
Brian

 

There is no such thing as apostolic succession. It is not taught in Scripture, nor can it be proved through history. Funny thing about history though. I’ll let you do the research. How many different sects can you come up with besides the Roman Catholic Church that claim Apostolic Succession. There might even be a sect of Baptists that believe along those lines. There is an Apostolic Church just a few blocks from where I live. The Mormons must believe something similar. So rest assured the RC’s aren’t the only ones to make this strange and odd claim. We believe simply that there were groups of believers in every age since the Apostles that had the same faith and doctrine that we, as Baptists, believe today. That is, there were no denominations, large church organizations, etc. There were small independent churches or assemblies scattered in various places throughout the known world at that time. There was no Catholic Church, and no succession of Apostles, and no succession of Popes from Peter.

1Cor.3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
--My foundation is Jesus Christ. On Him alone I stand.

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
--God has revealed Himself to us in these last days through His Son, Jesus Christ. He is revealed to us nowadays through His Word. God spoke in times past through the prophets. Now He speaks through His Son. The medium is the Word of God. That is how His Son is revealed, not through the Catholic Church or its tradition.

The magesterium of course, is unheard of in the Bible. Neither did any such organization get any authority from Scripture. Mat.18:18 is speaking of a local congregation. It is not speaking of a hierarchial monstrosity of an organization that you call a church. Nor is it speaking of the body of people that control it. It is speaking of the local assembly that we call the local church.
DHK