Response to FightingVatican (part 7) - on Authority, the Canon and the Papacy
I ask are you afraid of Authority? I am not asking in a condescending way, but more curious. Would you rather have authority for yourself? I mean the Jews lived under the authority of their priests, they did what they were told, even if they were not the best people. But that is what God put in: a System. And if the Bible is the only truth, what about the first 400 years of Christianity? They did not have a Bible, so what is of them? Truly a system of Pope, Bishop, Deacon, Priest was in order then, but they (under the Spirit) help formed the Canon of the Bible.
Am I afraid of authority? Now that is a silly question. Why would I be afraid of authority when I acknowledge the authority of the Lord through the Scriptures? That is the wrong question. The more pointed question would be “am I afraid of Rome’s authority?” Hmmm…never thought of it…but I would generally say that I am not inclined to follow the authority of something whose authority is not itself derived from the Word of God. So am I “afraid” of Rome’s authority. No. I just don’t acknowledge it or trust it when it comes to telling me what I need to do to be saved.
In regards to the canon of Scripture and the early Church. I strongly believe that the Church has always had a Bible. The very first Bible included only the OT but Christians began to recognize that the writings of the apostles were also to be counted among the Sacred Writings and considered with equal authority as the OT and as much the Word of God. For instance, in 2 Peter 3:16 Peter – probably around the mid first century, was already acknowledging the writings of Paul to be part of the Scriptures when he wrote that some twist Paul’s writing “along with the rest of the Scriptures.” In saying “the rest of the Scriptures” Peter is counting Paul’s writings in the category of the known sacred writings of the time. Likewise, Paul also acknowledges the Gospel of Luke as Scripture in quoting it with an OT source. In I Timothy 5:18, Paul says, “For the Scripture says, ‘you shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,’ and ‘the laborer is worthy of his wages.’” The first quote is from Deut. 25:4 while the second is from Luke 10:7. So clearly Paul was already aware that the Gospel of Luke was to be counted among the sacred Scriptures as he even freely used it to given authority to his own teachings. Now, I grant that the Church did not have the completed canon of Scripture until the final writing was done. Nevertheless, once the final writing of the final apostle was done (Revelation, 95 A.D.), that was the completion of the canon of Scripture. This is also a reason to reject writings after the first century because they were not of apostolic origin.
So when you say that the Church did not have a Bible until after 400 years, then how do you explain the early fathers quoting Scripture well before the Councils of Hippo and Carthage (393 and 397 respectively)? How do you account for Athanasius quoting Scripture to support the full deity of Jesus Christ against the Arian majority of his time? If there was known Scripture until the Roman Catholic Church said what was Scripture, then how can Peter or Paul say, “it is written”?
You also have to understand the times. Before the Edict of Milan, Christianity was persecuted. Do you think they had time or the organization, much less the freedom to have councils to settled doctrinal matters? Obviously not. It wasn’t until Christianity became “legalized” as it were was the Church able to actually come together and discuss and make statements like the Nicene Creed and Chalcedon. Also, there was no printing press…the Scriptures had to be copied by hand (when was the last time you tried doing that!!), they had to be circulated around the entire Christian community which didn’t happen through email and not even snail mail, but through smuggling letters from the apostles to the Churches. There was some communities that didn’t even see some of the known NT until much later after the letters were initially written and hence did not readily accept them. Some letters bore no author name, like Hebrews and so were disputed. Others seemed so mysterious that their canonicity was doubted, like Revelation. James, Jude, 2 and 3 John were also among the disputed books even up until Luther’s time.
I will agree that the times may have called for the structure of Bishops and such, but not that it was what Scripture neither warranted nor taught. Again, Bishops as the Roman Catholic Church knows them today were not functioning in the Church until the mid to late 2nd century.
The Pope has never been “necessary” in the Church either. Christ neither established such an office nor did the apostles. There is no evidence in the Apostolic Church that there was a Pope as was later defined in documents like Unam Sanctam and Vatican I ever in the apostolic Church. Rather, the apostles were all equals amongst each other. Obviously Peter does not emerge as the “leader” in the sense of “universal head of the Church” or the “vicar of Christ on earth” but merely as the first to do things. He is the first to preach the Gospel, but not the only. He is the first to preach to the Gentiles, but not the only. He was the first to confess Jesus as the Christ, the son of the living God, but not the only. Point in short, Peter the first among equals, but not exalted above the rest nor over them. Were it so, Paul would have been out of line for him to rebuke Peter to the face for “abandoning the Gospel”.
Am I afraid of authority? Now that is a silly question. Why would I be afraid of authority when I acknowledge the authority of the Lord through the Scriptures? That is the wrong question. The more pointed question would be “am I afraid of Rome’s authority?” Hmmm…never thought of it…but I would generally say that I am not inclined to follow the authority of something whose authority is not itself derived from the Word of God. So am I “afraid” of Rome’s authority. No. I just don’t acknowledge it or trust it when it comes to telling me what I need to do to be saved.
In regards to the canon of Scripture and the early Church. I strongly believe that the Church has always had a Bible. The very first Bible included only the OT but Christians began to recognize that the writings of the apostles were also to be counted among the Sacred Writings and considered with equal authority as the OT and as much the Word of God. For instance, in 2 Peter 3:16 Peter – probably around the mid first century, was already acknowledging the writings of Paul to be part of the Scriptures when he wrote that some twist Paul’s writing “along with the rest of the Scriptures.” In saying “the rest of the Scriptures” Peter is counting Paul’s writings in the category of the known sacred writings of the time. Likewise, Paul also acknowledges the Gospel of Luke as Scripture in quoting it with an OT source. In I Timothy 5:18, Paul says, “For the Scripture says, ‘you shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,’ and ‘the laborer is worthy of his wages.’” The first quote is from Deut. 25:4 while the second is from Luke 10:7. So clearly Paul was already aware that the Gospel of Luke was to be counted among the sacred Scriptures as he even freely used it to given authority to his own teachings. Now, I grant that the Church did not have the completed canon of Scripture until the final writing was done. Nevertheless, once the final writing of the final apostle was done (Revelation, 95 A.D.), that was the completion of the canon of Scripture. This is also a reason to reject writings after the first century because they were not of apostolic origin.
So when you say that the Church did not have a Bible until after 400 years, then how do you explain the early fathers quoting Scripture well before the Councils of Hippo and Carthage (393 and 397 respectively)? How do you account for Athanasius quoting Scripture to support the full deity of Jesus Christ against the Arian majority of his time? If there was known Scripture until the Roman Catholic Church said what was Scripture, then how can Peter or Paul say, “it is written”?
You also have to understand the times. Before the Edict of Milan, Christianity was persecuted. Do you think they had time or the organization, much less the freedom to have councils to settled doctrinal matters? Obviously not. It wasn’t until Christianity became “legalized” as it were was the Church able to actually come together and discuss and make statements like the Nicene Creed and Chalcedon. Also, there was no printing press…the Scriptures had to be copied by hand (when was the last time you tried doing that!!), they had to be circulated around the entire Christian community which didn’t happen through email and not even snail mail, but through smuggling letters from the apostles to the Churches. There was some communities that didn’t even see some of the known NT until much later after the letters were initially written and hence did not readily accept them. Some letters bore no author name, like Hebrews and so were disputed. Others seemed so mysterious that their canonicity was doubted, like Revelation. James, Jude, 2 and 3 John were also among the disputed books even up until Luther’s time.
I will agree that the times may have called for the structure of Bishops and such, but not that it was what Scripture neither warranted nor taught. Again, Bishops as the Roman Catholic Church knows them today were not functioning in the Church until the mid to late 2nd century.
The Pope has never been “necessary” in the Church either. Christ neither established such an office nor did the apostles. There is no evidence in the Apostolic Church that there was a Pope as was later defined in documents like Unam Sanctam and Vatican I ever in the apostolic Church. Rather, the apostles were all equals amongst each other. Obviously Peter does not emerge as the “leader” in the sense of “universal head of the Church” or the “vicar of Christ on earth” but merely as the first to do things. He is the first to preach the Gospel, but not the only. He is the first to preach to the Gentiles, but not the only. He was the first to confess Jesus as the Christ, the son of the living God, but not the only. Point in short, Peter the first among equals, but not exalted above the rest nor over them. Were it so, Paul would have been out of line for him to rebuke Peter to the face for “abandoning the Gospel”.
posted by prchdaword at 6:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home