I couldn't post this below for some reason, so here we go.
Danny and I both agree that the full canon is inspired. We both accept the full canon on faith, however, we also agree with it because it corresponds to the historical position of the Church (both the inspiration and number of books). Also, the idea of sola scriptura would've made zero sense in any of the earliest ecclesiastical communities. It is alltogether absent from the thought of the Apostles, their disciples, etc. What Danny and I both believe is that the Catholic Church has been the Church since the Apostles. No doubt they've expounded upon and defined doctrines and dogmas, but has been one Church nonetheless. We believe this with faith, however, we also look to history. Faith, in the words of Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological, should be a step, not a leap. Our faith in the Church, in the full canon, etc, is a faith based in reality, based on right reason. One can have faith, but it shouldn't be faith that contradicts reality. So, when you have a faith that contradicts reality (i.e. the Fathers/Councils affirming a truncated canon), it naturally causes suspicion (regardless of the philosophical dress that it wears).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Josh, if you want to get into things that would have made zero sense to the earliest ecclesiastical communities, lets try Catholic soteriology, priests as church leaders, celibate church leaders, papal authority, calling a human being Holy Father, believing that water can actually cleanse sin, etc... Also, was sola scriptura all that foreign to the Apostle Paul, who wrote 2 Tim 3:16? In conclusion, you continue to ignore my point. What is an historical fact? What is the word of men worth in an epistemic sense. Are you saying that a 66 book canon contradicts reality? It is your trust in a hopelessly subjective discipline that contradicts reality. Councils? Why trust a council? Let's begin there, tell me why you would trust a council.
I originally posted this below,but it seems the conversation has moved up here:
Now we see Matthew trying to back out of his historical claim by saying that history is false. He tells us "plenty of Fathers" hold for a 66 book canon. When called to put up or shut up, he says that it doesn't matter what the Fathers say because history is misleading. WOW!!! Do you listen to yourself? Do you realize how asinine you sound?
Also those councils of men are guided by the Holy Spirit, of whom Christ said would lead the Church into all truth. What Church did He mean? He meant the Church which he founded, the Catholic Church, not Protestant denominations that left the Catholic Church! Christ also said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. If you say that the Catholic Church is not guided by the Holy Spirit then you make Christ out to be a liar!
p.s. excuse my rather harsh polemic in arguing. You see, unlike you it seems, I have been reading the Fathers for the past two years and I seem to have developed their arguing style of not putting up with nonesense (as in your arguments make no sense!) when responding to people who go against the teachings of the Catholic Church (the Fathers would call them 'heretics'), which are the very same teachings handed down (also known as Tradition) from Christ to the Apostles and so on.
Well, trusting councils isn't a Catholic only thing. I assume you believe in the Trinity, that the Son is co-eternal with the Father, etc. Why I trust in councils will come later, but lets look at 2 Timothy 3:16. Catholics affirm this! In fact, we really affirm this considerably more than you. I believe that all Scripture is inspired by God, profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness...not just some of it. However, St. Paul never says "Only Scripture is profitable for these things." Quite the contrary. I've already showed in Scripture where Tradition was in place and was used for instruction.
Matthew,
When Paul wrote 2nd Timothy what was considered Scripture? Not what became Scripture but what Scripture was he referring to?
How about this church father:
"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed."
I will pray for you guys, until then I would encourage you to read some philosophy and know what you are talking about before you throw explicit insults at people and publish blog articles against people. Don't look to win arguments, look for truth. Pax vobiscum
Hey anonymous,
I'll encourage you not to be a coward and post your name. I'd also encourge you to study some theology so you will know two things:
1) The so called "church father" you quoted is not a church father but an Apostle (there's a difference). And he didn't say anything about the canon in the quote either.
2)It was Martin Luther and the Reformers who changed the Gospel which was unchanged for 1500 years. I'll pray for you so that you don't follow the religion founded by a man, whether it be Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Henry VIII, or whoever.
This has really gone beyond the scope of what I wanted. I was looking for someone, anyone, to defend on historical grounds a 66 book canon. That's all. There's no need to insinuate people don't read philosophy simply because they don't agree with you.
This may have been suggested elsewhere, but for a historical development of the canon, try "Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible" by Gary G. Michuta.
I second the suggestion to read the book by Gary Michuta!
Post a Comment