Posted on 01/18/2002 6:11:04 AM PST by 1stFreedom
Folks, I'm reposting this article, edited so as to not appear to be attacking anybody.
I'd like your opinion, as this is an article in working progress. If you agree, disagree, have facts & figures, I'd appreciate your comments.
I've purposely left out the controversy over the OT beacause 1. I need to do some research, and 2. The focus of this article is on the agreed upon NT cannon. (It's more for discussion of NT amongst different denominations). I'll write another article on the OT, or incorporate it here.
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE BIBLE
INTRODUCTION
Many schools of theology contend that the Church had a falling away, or went apostate, not too long after the death of the last Apostle. The approximate date varies, with 100AD for Jehovah Witnesses and 312AD for Calvinists and Mormons.
ERRANT CHURCH
If the Church had indeed fallen away from the faith, then this presents a very serious problem for the Church. The problem is so large it is a showstopper and it calls into question the validity of the faith itself.
The problem is this: If the Church was indeed apostate, then how could anything handled by the Church be trusted? Could any major (not minor) tenant taught or produced by the errant Church be considered valid? If so, then how can the modern Church accept a major tenant from an apostate Church?
EARLY CHRISTIANITY
Contrary to the current wide availability of the New Testament, the first believers did not have a copy of the New Testament.
The first Christians had the blessing of hearing the teachings of Christ personally. The apostles carried these teachings to various foreign lands for many years afterwards.
These Christians had no cannon of Scriptures, and in fact, some of the scriptures were being written during this period. (Such as the Epistles, which were letters to the various churches.)
Those who came after the time of the twelve apostles continued to teach the Gospel as well as the writings of the Apostles.
But there were also other writings that were considered to be inspired. One could even go as far as to argue that the Didichae or the Shepard of Hermas could be candidates for consideration of being divinely inspired. The early Church had to determine whether or not various writings were inspired. This didn't happen overnight.
Through the course of time, well after the earliest possible date (100ad) of a supposed apostasy, various writings were examined, tested, debated, and validated/invalidated by the Church.
THE CANNON IS RECOGNIZED
Thee first real recognition of the cannon of the New Testament came in the late 300’s (two synods, one in 382 and one in 392). This recognition is not the absolute “official” cannon, but rather just recognition of the NT cannon of Scripture.
NOTE: The Church rarely puts a stamp of official approval on anything until there is a serious dispute. This is why it wasn’t until the Council of Trent that the “official” cannon was “certified” – there was no serious dispute till that time frame (minor disputes? yes). The “unofficial” “official” cannon was recognized for centuries, but only certified at Trent.
THE ACHILLES HEAL OF AN APOSTASY
This formal recognition of the NT Cannon is the problem for believers.
If the Church was in error in the proposed range (100ad-312ad), then how could the errant church be trusted to be correct about the cannon of Scripture? How can one say for certainty that the cannon is correct. Maybe the Didichae belongs in there?
It's an error in logic, a paradox, to say that "An errant Church, misguided and corrupt, produced an infallible cannon of Scripture which is the foundation of the faith for non-Catholic believers."
While it is true that an errant church can teach valid truths, it is not true that an errant church can define the entire faith on which these truths rest.
CONCLUSION
A common reaction to the question of the cannon of the NT is that the Holy Spirit has confirmed it to individuals and the Church. If the Spirit indeed does confirm that the NT cannon is correct, then one has to admit that the either an apostate Church produced an infallible NT cannon (a contradiction) OR, that in fact, the Church wasn't apostate after all.
To reasonable people, the conclusion "that in fact, the church wasn't apostate after all or if it was then the NT cannon and the faith as well is in serious doubt", is inescapable.
-----
Comments??
There is a great book, MARTYRS MIRROR, written in 1660, which chronicles the existance of a true church with scriptural doctrine from the time of the early church forward. It also chronicles the persecution of that church. Highly recommended.
What historical writings does it quote to prove its thesis. I've read the 38 volumes of Patristic writings as well as Josephus and Pliny. I have not seen anything supporting your statement but would like to see your sources.
It is difficult to follow any kind of an argument based on unsupported premises.
A brief paragraph on each of the assertions above (the Jehovah Witnesses, the Calvinists and Mormons) might be useful to maintain the illusion that the article is intended to shed light and not heat.
In addition, any mind that cannot make a distinction between "tenet" and "tenant" is not ready for prime time. At least not for me.
"Didache"...in Greek it means "The Teaching" ...short for the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Some scholars date its writing to 140AD and some as early as 70 AD. You might say it was an early catechism. You can find it HERE
Since the recognition of the cannon (late 300's), there have always been people who claimed "sola scriptura." But for the most part, these were far and few between. But in the early Church it wasn't even an issue!
With no recognized compiled cannon, the idea of early "biblical" Christianity was non-existant. True, the Gospels were probably widely used, but there is much silence as to what else was used in the mean time. I'm sure some groups had incomplete cannons and others had "extra" NT books that turned out not to be inspired.
What you had in the early church was "Apostolic" Christianity, that is, the teachings of the Apostles and the Apostles successors. Surely there were copies of writings, but like I speculate, not every church or group had them all.
Even the claim that the bible alone is the sole authority is unscriptural. It wasn't till the 1500's that this idea was even seriously considered. This doesn't mean that it was invented in the 1500's, just that it mushroomed.
This is a side discussion with some relevance to the article however, as I think I have to include what early Christians had and didn't have in terms of scripture.
Thanks for the reply!
Acts 20:29-31 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
II Timothy 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
By the end of the first century the only apostolic procession was by these grievous wolves. We must look to the scriptures themselves, not the church tradition laid by grievous wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Scripture should be the guide. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. God is not aman that he should lie. Jesus Christ is a man. I understand church tradition. I also understand mans ability to get it wrong especially in established institutions and governments. Abortion is held as a "right" by the USSC, but it does not make it a right in the true sense of the word as used by our founders. What the govt says is not to be confused with what the consitution says. The same concept goes for "church fathers" as opposed to the Word of God itself.
Religion is, was and always will be mans invention, what man does and says. Christianity is what God has done, is doing and will do in and through Jesus Christ.
This article IS NOT ready for prime time. I typed it on my IPAQ with a little flaky keyboard, so I'm not surprised at errors. I did rush to post it instead of checking the spelling and grammar! The misspelling of a word does not, however, destroy the argument the article makes.
I'm posting it here to take suggestions so that it is a credible piece. I'm kinda relying on you readers to help me get this article to a point where it is ready for prime time. That's why I do ask for correct dates, etc.
Thanks
What burbling nonsense. You're like a Charismatic quoting a Bible verse to prove he doesn't need the Bible.
The JW are much more akin to a 20th Century cult than any religion I know. Just spend some time at their Brooklyn Heights World HQ. It is like stepping into the Stepford Wives.
1st writes that "To reasonable people"...his conclusion..."is inescapable". This tactic of defining your position as the only reasonable one is, in my experience, used by college sophomores who are trying to learn how to think and the far left...think how often the left uses the phrase "right-minded people". It's the same and it's weak.
If you want to join the anti-Catholic league I suggest that you learn to get a little deeper in your own thinking.
Not to get sidetracked, but see my reply to a post in which I give my opinion on the influence of man on the Church. Reply concerning Foursqare Church
Through this statement you accuse every Christian writer of being apostate to the faith and "grievous wolves". That's a pretty bold statement. What proof do you have of that? What writings? What historical proof bears you true?
He obviously has no argument. Ridicule is always a substitute for legitimate argument when there is none.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.