Hi Wolesly,
Sorry for the delay, but you're right about these posts taking time. At least you'll have all weekend to make your reply, as I will be gone till monday.
"Context, Schrack. Why did Paul say that every man should have his own wife? "To avoid
fornication". In verse 9 he says, "If they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry". The
point being that if you're going to be a priest, it is understood that you have a handle on your sexual desires."
Well in context, where did Paul say anything about priests? No where. His message was to the entire congregation, and that is proven by virtue of his words "let every man/let every woman." And yes, the weakness of the flesh is precisely why every man and woman is permitted to have their own spouse. While celibacy was preferred by the apostle Paul, he understood that it cannot be imposed for this very reason.
"Again, Scripture for us is not the ultimate arbiter for faith and morals. The Church is."
If you believe the church governs the Scriptures and not the other way around, then you would have also to believe the church in Corinth could have set aside Paul's apostolic rule to install their own regarding celibacy and marriage, correct?
"Depends on the vow he took in the first place. Celibacy? No, he doesn't have the right to change his mind. Marriage to a woman? No, he doesn't have that right to change his mind (i.e., divorce and re-marriage). No vow to either? Yes, he can change his mind."
First of all, celibacy does not require vows as does marriage. Celibacy is what God expects of unmarried people, at least until they marry. Now, if a man has vowed, then you are correct in that he has to keep his vows. Unless, of course, he had been deceived to believe he was required to make such a vow, which he is not. In this instance, that vow would become invalid because it was based on a lie and not the truth, and you know as well as I do that the truth liberates.
"Yes, he did. Which simply means that at that time, the Church had not imposed the discipline of celibacy Church-wide. Later, they did."
Of course celibacy had not been imposed, because God's answer to Paul was clear that the Lord did not will the imposition of it. That is why Paul did not attempt to trap them into celibacy.
I wrote:
"Well, Wolseley, the verse did say the "church" or assembly is the pillar and ground of the truth. Are you telling me that the verse is not saying that? Are you saying that Paul should have meant to say "the magisterium"? Either the Christian assembly is the pillar and ground of the truth or some other body is. And if it be the Christian assembly, such as those established in the New Testament, then it certainly could not be the body of the magisterium, now could it?"
You replied:
"Again, Scripture for us is not the ultimate arbiter for faith and morals. The Church is. We also interpret Scripture and Scared Tradition in light of each other, while you interpretScripture in light of itself, thus making for vastly different interpretations of the same verses, taking into consideration the bodies of context you're dealing with.
This really didn't answer the questions I raised, Wolseley. I want you to tell me what you are taught to believe: is the Christian assembly the pillar and ground of the truth, as Paul stated, or is your magisterium?
"Jesus chose special men to be His Apostles (Jn 15:16). To those men He gave His mission (Jn 20:21). He appointed one of them to be the head of the rest (Lk 22:32, Jn 21:17). He gave these men all power (Mt 28:18ff). They could forgive sins (Jn 20:23). They could speak with Christ's voice (Lk 10:16). They could both discipline and legislate others (Mat 18:17ff). The Church was built upon them (Eph 2:20). And when they died, their office passed on to their replacements (Acts 1:20-26). He did not give this power to everybody (Eph 4:11). Ergo, as I said: you have the clergy, and then you have the laity."
The church is one, Wolesely. It is not broken up into a heirarchy with the leadership being at the top of the pack. All are disciples of Christ. True, God has given different gifts to different men, but that does not make one higher than the other. It only makes them all servants of Christ. Furthermore, Jesus made it plain that his apostles were not to exercise authority over God's church like the Gentiles exercised it over their people. That just isn't the Christian way. It may have been the Roman way, but not the Christian way.
"In the Gospels, the 12 disciples were the Apostles. The disciples didn't become Apostles ("those who are sent" until after Christ's Ascention."
I think a little Bible harmonizing might do well here. Luke says Mary Magdalene and other women came in the morning and told the eleven "and the rest" that Christ rose from the dead (Lk. 24:9-10). This is validated by John in 20:18. Later that same day, the two disciples on the road to Emmaus requested Jesus to abide with them as it was "toward evening, and the day is far spent." (24:29). After Jesus ate and vanished from their sight, they rose up the same hour and returned to Jerusalem (a 7.5 mile trip) and found "the eleven gathered, and those that were with them" (24:33). By this time, it had to be evening, and thus John says "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst...." Luke ties everything together nicely when he wrote: "And as they [the disciples on the road to Emmaus] thus spoke [to the apostle and all the rest], Jesus stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you" (24:36). And this is where John fills in what Luke left out in verse 36: "as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you" (20:21). So all of Jesus' disciples, Wolesley, were there (except Thomas), and the truth of the matter is, Jesus gave his authority not to any magisterium but to all of his disciples, his church. I realize this will diminish any argument for the special authority of your magisterium, but truth is truth no matter how much one believes to the contrary.
"Does not this indicate that you have set yourself up as the final judge of what is truly Apostolic doctrine?"
Not at all, because it was the apostles and other holy men who told us what is truly apostolic. It's not as if they kept it a secret, you know. They filled up 27 New Testament books explaining and delivering once-for-all the true faith to the saints of Christ's churches. So I don't need to set myself up as the final judge...their words are already final because they were inspired of God.
"What of those who disagree with your conclusions?"
What of them? They can disagree all they want. Did disagreements between Catholics stop Catholics from claiming what they believed to be the truth?
"And what if those who succeeded the Apostles were basing their teachings on the doctrines they learned from the Apostles?"
And just how would you know they actually got it from the apostles? How do you know they just didn't make it up as they went along? Just because they claimed to have succeeded the apostles? Joseph Smith did that not too long ago as well, but he claimed it was an angel. Oh wait...people believed him too.
"Actually, no; I am speaking of the Council of Hippo in 393 AD, which was followed by the
Councils of Carthage---3 Carthage in 397, and 4 Carthage in 418. In all cases, these councils merely followed the listing put forth by Pope Damasus in 382 AD, containing the same listing found in Catholic Bibles today."
I have often heard of this "list" put forth by Damasus, which some have attempted to use as a "proof" that the bishop of Rome sanctioned a canon which included the apocrypha, and that others, like those in Africa, used it as their guide. The truth of the matter, however, may be found in Jerome's own words. Below is a quote from one of his prefaces, although I have lost the exact reference:
"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of the Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church."
There is also this which I found at the University of Oregon: "Jerome did not include the Apocrypha in the body of his translation. These are the fifteen books of the Bible that were not considered part of the Herbrew canon. However, he included the Apocrypha in an appendix so that people might utilize the books for their own edification, but "not for the corroboration of ecclesiastical doctrines." (Kelly, p. 161; Apocrypha, p. xii; Britannica, "Saint Jerome")."
The fact is, Jerome did include apocryphal books in his version, but they were
not considered inspired by the church at Rome. And take note that Jerome referred to the church's view and not his own. Consequently, the councils of Hippo and Carthage acted on their own in declaring the apocryphal books as being part of the inspired Scriptures. And so, as I said, these African councils had only determined for themselves what was inspired; they did not determine for the rest of the world what was the canon, despite the fact that their version, many centuries later, was made the official catholic canon by Trent and is what you use now.
"You're correct, which was the major reason the Pope put together the listing of books he did in 382."
Well, we both now know this to be completely irrelevant to my original contention, isn't it?
"Tertullian was a Christian from 197 to 212, and accepted the rulings of the Catholic Faith; after a period of wavering, he succumbed to the Montanist heresy in 213, and died as a heretic around 240. It is unsurprising that he would accept the rulings of heretical councils which might include or discount non-canonical books, but the fact that he deviated from Christianity does not nullify the veracity of the canon approbated by the Church."
Who said the councils themselves were heretical? From what I read in Tertullian's writings, these councils were accepted by the majority of churches with whom Tertullian was familiar, before he became a Montanist. And as for Tertullian being a heretic, well, you can have whatever opinion you wish of him, but don't forget that it was he who defended the Trinity against the bishop of Rome who fell into the heresy of Praxeus. And it was he who defended the ancient discipline of the churches in regard to the one man/one wife rule, when the "physics" (i.e. later called Catholics) were multiplying marriages and permitting adultery to exist in the church. And it was Tertullian who exposed the fleeing shepherds of the flocks for what they were--traitors and apostates to the faith of Christ. Strange that such a man, as well as those churches with whom he joined, would be called "heretic" by you rather than those churches who were guilty of the above sins.
"Notice, however, how Epiphanius draws a distinction between the Montanists and "true Christians". He also does not enumerate the books he considers "the whole of the old Scriptures", any more than he names what he considers the New Testament. And in any event, Epiphanius is not the deciding factor in the canon of scripture; the Popes and various Catholic councils are."
Epiphanius did not draw a distinction, he made a comparison: "as do all true Christians." If he had made a distinction, he would have said "as opposed to all true Christians." Also, Epiphanius was one of those who rejected the apocryphal writings, as did Jerome. And he does list which books are canonical, but the problem I've had is not having full access to his Panarion. And if what I have read about his canonical list is correct, then the Montanists held to Scriptures no diffrent than we Baptists hold to today.
I wrote:
"I actually understand celibacy quite well. In fact, I was a celibate pastor myself for quite some time before I married. But I also understand that celibacy does not require a vow to remain celibate indefinitely. A man is not required of God to vow celibacy."
You replied:
"If he wants to be a priest, he does."
Where did God ever require a man to vow celibacy in order to become a minister?
"Here, again, we get into matters of interpretation within contexts."
The text needs no interpretation. Paul is clear. He was not trying to trap the Corinthians into celibacy. He was just trying to demonstrate to them what would profit them the most during the "present distress." How is it that you interpret his words entirely differently?
"Did he? Then how do you account for 2 Peter 1:20 and 3:16?"
I'll take 2 Peter 3:16 first, as it requires a shorter explanation. First, Peter said "some things" are hard to be understood, not "all things." Second, he says "which they," the "unlearned and ustable," i.e. "undiscipled" or unconverted, wrestle to their own destruction.
As for 1 Pet. 1:20, that isn't so hard either. Peter did not say "no Scripture" is of any private interptetation, he said "no
prophecy of the Scripture" was of any private interpretation. In other words, when men of old spoke prophetically it was not by their own will but rather they were moved by the Holy Spirit to speak. It was not their own words or their own explanation, but it was the Lord's, his revelation of things to come. Now if Peter had meant what you Catholics take his words to mean, then it sure would be a strange thing for him to have written average Christians and then turn around and say that they would not be able to interpret what he wrote by inspiration. But the fact was, he delivered and entrusted Sacred Scripture to the minds of those ordinary Christians because he knew they had God's Spirit too.
"...and by that very fact, not part of the Catholic Church."
But in their eyes, they are every bit as Catholic as you think you are. And in their eyes you are the schismatics, not them. Catholicism has always been fractured, Wolesley. Always. But I'll leave it between you Catholics to sort out who the true Catholics are.
Long post, Schreck. Took me a while to get through this reply. BTW, did you know that "schreck" is the German word for "fear"?
Nope. Didn't know that. But the name is Schrack, not Schreck. Till next time...
SchracktheBaptist