GK Chesterton on Protestant Logic

[simonthezealot]

The truth is, that development is visible in that brief section of the Christian story of which the New Testament books are a fragmentary record, and in the last resort the choice is between accepting the principle of development and rejecting the Christian claim to possess a divine revelation.

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm

from there I found this...

For "no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives" and presides and "exercises judgment in his successors" the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood

"Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church.
So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted,
and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received "
First Vatican Council


TRENTO, there is no room for development. According to this the first person to succeed Peter would have primacy over the whole church, yet nothing in any snippets you guys can provide confirm anythinbg close to this.

 

[Albion]

One of the main problems with Trento's line of thought is that he thinks he's reading one thing when he's actually reading something else. For example, he thinks that Primacy means Papacy. It doesn't in the least, and this point has been written here many times by people of many denominations or communions.

Being the recipient of honor or even of greatest prestige does not in any way mean universal rule or infallibility--two essentials of the Papacy's claims. And honor and influence can come from many sources. In Rome's case, we know that it was because of the city itself and had nothing to do with Christ or his intentions.

 

[Trento]

We've read these same couple of snippets several times before.

Posting and reposting the same material, taken out of context and misinterpreted despite explanations given to you, may make you feel better, but it does nothing for establishing the truth about the early church.




OK?

I seek to support each of the particulars of my argument with Protestant scholarly backing, precisely because the constant accusation is that Catholic positions lack biblical support. If we are accused by Protestants of straining at gnats in our biblical arguments , we go cite worthy exegetes and commentators such as France and Carson, or, respected experts such as Bruce or Schaff or the various evangelical Protestant reference works and commentaries (which I love and consult all the time, and learn much from). Why is this so hard to understand? It's called "hostile witness" or "logic" or "cumulative argument." It is a standard argumentative technique or methodology (and, I think, highly effective, which is why I like to use it a lot

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

One of the main problems with Trento's line of thought is that he thinks he's reading one thing when he's actually reading something else. For example, he thinks that Primacy means Papacy.

That is usually the interpretations of the RCC.

http://christianforums.com/t7192552-teachings-of-men.html

 

[Trento]

TRENTO, there is no room for development. According to this the first person to succeed Peter would have primacy over the whole church, yet nothing in any snippets you guys can provide confirm anythinbg close to this.

Council of Ephesus 431 with 200 Bishops attending called because Nestorianism split Jesus in half and denied that he was both Human and Devine an essentially Christological controversy. The200 Bishops signd off when the reading below was announced at the council


EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS. SESSION II.
[immediately following letter of the Pope to the Councilof Ephesus]431

There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (exarkoV) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (qemelioV) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Coelestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith.


Everyone else also agreed with those views, and this is shown by the fact that no one expressed any disagreement with them. After all, the Ecumenical Councils were where heretical views were supposed to be corrected, and so if there were anything wrong expressed at those councils, it would have been the ideal time to correct those errors. And yet no one did object, despite the fact that these Catholic views of the Papacy were repeated over and over again throughout the councils of the first millennium.
Simon would like to have us believe that these councils have no power within the Christian Church. Well Simon maybe we should believe Nestorian.

Then again your own Protestant Scholars agree with the historical Fact.
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Eerdmans, 1910
"It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople...." (Schaff, page 166)
Schaff then proceeds to list the Bishops of Rome just as I have them above, along with the corresponding Roman Emperors. St. Irenaeus gives this exact list of successors to Peter as Bishops of Rome up to his time (Against Heresies 3:3:1-3 c. 180-199 AD), as does St. Hegesippus up to his time (about 20 years earlier, c. 160 AD) cited in the first History of the Church by Eusebius

• St. Peter (d. 64 or 67)
• St. Linus (67-76)
• St. Anacletus (76-88)
• St. Clement I (88-97)
• St. Evaristus (97-105)
• St. Alexander I (105-115)
• St. Sixtus I (115-125)
• St. Telesphorus (125-136)
• St. Hyginus (136-140)
• St. Pius I (140-155)
• St. Anicetus (155-166)
• St. Soter (166-175)
• St. Eleutherius (175-189)
• St. Victor I (189-199)

Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Eerdmans, 1910) -- "Rome was the battle-field of orthodoxy and heresy, and a resort of all sects and parties. It attracted from every direction what was true and false in philosophy and religion. Ignatius rejoiced in the prospect of suffering for Christ in the centre of the world; Polycarp repaired hither to settle with Anicetus the paschal controversy; Justin Martyr presented there his defense of Christianity to the emperors, and laid down for it his life; Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian conceded to that church a position of singular pre-eminence. Rome was equally sought as a commanding position by heretics and theosophic jugglers, as Simon Magus, Valentine, Marcion, Cerdo, and a host of others. No wonder, then, that the bishops of Rome at an early date were looked upon as metropolitan pastors, and spoke and acted accordingly with an air of authority which reached far beyond their immediate diocese." (Schaff, volume 2, page 157

 

[simonthezealot]

I seek to support each of the particulars of my argument with Protestant scholarly backing, precisely because the constant accusation is that Catholic positions lack biblical support. If we are accused by Protestants of straining at gnats in our biblical arguments , we go cite worthy exegetes and commentators such as France and Carson, or, respected experts such as Bruce or Schaff or the various evangelical Protestant reference works and commentaries (which I love and consult all the time, and learn much from). Why is this so hard to understand? It's called "hostile witness" or "logic" or "cumulative argument." It is a standard argumentative technique or methodology (and, I think, highly effective, which is why I like to use it a lot

Trento if you desire to quote these guys...Link them so they can be read in context, these snippets have been proven to be out of context so many times you are not considered a historically reliable poster. Do it for your own credibility I believ you'll learn something.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Bye Bye.

http://christianforums.com/t7192552-teachings-of-men.html

 

[simonthezealot]

Council of Ephesus 431 with 200 Bishops attending called because

400 years after Christ... Good one trento

 

[Albion]

I seek to support each of the particulars of my argument with Protestant scholarly backing,

Basing your work on one or two snippets taken out of context will get you an "F" on any term paper in any university. This is not research. It doesn't establish anything.

I can easily respond with a piece written by a former Catholic priest blasting his former church and even call him a scholar, if you wish. All of that proves nothing, whether or not you realize it. There's not even any attempt on your part to defend the proposition you think you are offering when it is pointed out that you got the meaning wrong. You just repost it without explanation.

because the constant accusation is that Catholic positions lack biblical support.

Posting a lineage of bishops of Rome and the words of some church council are not, I hate to tell you, "biblical support."

If we are accused by Protestants of straining at gnats in our biblical arguments , we go cite worthy exegetes and commentators such as France and Carson,

For "Biblical support," you have to post 1) Bible passages, and 2) some exegesis.

 

[Trento]

400 years after Christ... Good one trento

Simon would like to have us believe that these councils have no power within the Christian Church. Well Simon maybe we should believe Nestorian.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

GK Chesterton on Protestant Logic

I actually prefer "CHRIST-IAN" logic.

http://christianforums.com/t7192552-teachings-of-men.html

 

[simonthezealot]

Simon would like to have us believe that these councils have no power within the Christian Church. Well Simon maybe we should believe Nestorian.

Maybe you should seek with an open heart and mind.
I wouldn't have anyone do anything...I present facts the Holy Spirit changes hearts and minds. I defend the truth and expose falsehoods!

 

[Albion]

Simon would like to have us believe that these councils have no power within the Christian Church. Well Simon maybe we should believe Nestorian.

In fact, he probably believes neither. The opposite of church councils is not a heretic who also comes along centuries after Christ...but the Word of God, the Bible.

If you are really hoping to debunk your opponent, you have to address the real issues, even if they are not as much fun as sarcasm.

 

[Trento]

In fact, he probably believes neither. The opposite of church councils is not a heretic who also comes along centuries after Christ...but the Word of God, the Bible.

If you are really hoping to debunk your opponent, you have to address the real issues, even if they are not as much fun as sarcasm.

Which also came out of a Council.

Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture
Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.
But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

• Genesis.
• Exodus.
• Leviticus.
• Numbers.
• Deuteronomy.
• Joshua the Son of Nun.
• The Judges.
• Ruth.
• The Kings, iv. books.
• The Chronicles, ij. books.
• Job.
• The Psalter.
• The Five books of Solomon.
• The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
• Isaiah.
• Jeremiah.
• Ezechiel.
• Daniel.
• Tobit.
• Judith.
• Esther.
• Ezra, ij. books.
• Macchabees, ij. books.
  • The New Testament.
    • The Gospels, iv. books.
    • The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
    • The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
    • The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
    • The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
    • The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
    • The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
    • The Revelation of John, j. book.
      • Let this be sent to our brother Pope, Boniface, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

 

[simonthezealot]

Which also came out of a Council.

Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.iv.i.html?


Yet Clement of Alexandria a couple centuries earlier didn't think he needed an infallible ruling from the RCC in order to recognize which books are scripture and which aren't:

"It will naturally fall after these, after a cursory view of theology, to discuss the opinions handed down respecting prophecy; so that, having demonstrated that the Scriptures which we believe are valid from their omnipotent authority, we shall be able to go over them consecutively, and to show thence to all the heresies one God and Omnipotent Lord to be truly preached by the law and the prophets, and besides by the blessed Gospel. Many contradictions against the heterodox await us while we attempt, in writing, to do away with the force of the allegations made by them, and to persuade them against their will, proving by the Scriptures themselves....He, then, who of himself believes the Scripture and voice of the Lord, which by the Lord acts to the benefiting of men, is rightly regarded faithful. Certainly we use it as a criterion in the discovery of things. What is subjected to criticism is not believed till it is so subjected; so that what needs criticism cannot be a first principle. Therefore, as is reasonable, grasping by faith the indemonstrable first principle, and receiving in abundance, from the first principle itself, demonstrations in reference to the first principle, we are by the voice of the Lord trained up to the knowledge of the truth....Since also, in what pertains to life, craftsmen are superior to ordinary people, and model what is beyond common notions; so, consequently, we also, giving a complete exhibition of the Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, from faith persuade by demonstration." (The Stromata, 4:1, 7:16)

 

[tz620q]

I guess you didn't bother reading the profile of the person to whom you are responding here. I believe he/she is Catholic . . . .

racer,
Sorry for the confusion. Chestertonrules and I were playing off each other a bit. I was taking a humanist slant on G.K. Chesterton's comments, to wit, truth is a free market commodity and independent of any internal logic. The modern man is perfectly capable of picketing for abortion in the morning and against the death penalty in the afternoon without worrying too much about the inconsistency of his logic. G.K. Chesterton's original remark was pertinent to this in that we Catholics see scripture as part of a larger and logical revelation of God's plan. As a plan, to enact only one part of this without the rest would seem destined for failure to a Catholic.

 

[Albion]

Which also came out of a Council.

No. The council APPROVED the books that were already in use.

So again, Biblical evidence requires you to refer to Bible passages which you did not do here.

• • • • Let this be sent to our brother Pope, Boniface, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

What do you derive from this reference? It is not the "Biblical evidence" you wanted to use to refute Protestant claims that RC teachings are not based upon the Bible, so what do we know except that a council that convened HUNDREDS OF YEARS after Christ and the writing of the last book of the Bible accorded him the title--not necessarily the powers that you associate with a pope, but the title? It says nothing about the views of the Apostolic Church, in other words. I hope you see that I'm willing to listen to Biblical evidence if you have some, but you keep offering us something else instead.

 

[Trento]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.iv.i.html?


Yet Clement of Alexandria a couple centuries earlier didn't think he needed an infallible ruling from the RCC in order to recognize which books are scripture and which aren't:

First of all Speaking of his own teachers Clement writes.

'But they, safeguarding the TRUE tradition of the blessed teachin, which comes straight from the Apostles Peter, James, John and Paul and transmitted from father to son have come down to us with the help of God to deposit in us those acenstral and apostolic seeds'
Stromata 1,11

Right after Clement repudiates the private interpretation of the Gnostics he writes:

'For US...having grown old in the Scriptures, PRESERVING the Apostolic and ecclesiastical correctness of doctrine, living a life according to the Gospel, is led by the Lord to discover the proofs from the Law and the prophets which he seeks.'
ibid 7,104


Secondly what did he believe what was scripture at the time before the infallible ruling by council?


He lived in the late 100 and did most of his writings in the early 200s . If you study the Fathers and Divided into time periods, here is what the Fathers thought:


160 a.d.- 250 a.d.
Summary - Awareness of a Canon begins toward the end of the 2nd century. Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria were the first to use the phrase "New Testament" in the 2nd and 3rd century.

Gospels - Accepted

Acts - Gradually accepted


Pauline Writings - Accepted with certain exceptions



2 Timothy - Rejected by Clement



Philemon - Rejected by Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and Clement

Hebrews - Not considered canonical until the 4th century in the West. Disputed by Origen. First accepted by Clement.


James - Not canonical. First mentioned and disputed by Origen. Rejected by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement


1 Peter - Gradual acceptance. First accepted by Irenaeus and Clement

2 Peter - Not canonical. First mentioned and disputed by Origen. Rejected by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement

1 John - Gradual acceptance. First accepted by Irenaeus, and rejected by Origen.


2 John - Not canonical. Disputed by Origen and rejected by Tertullian and Clement



3 John - Not canonical. Disputed by Origen and rejected by Tertullian and Clement



Jude - Gradual acceptance. Accepted by Clement and rejected by Origen.


Revelation - Gradual acceptance. First accepted by Clement and rejected by the Barococcio Canon of 206


Shepherd of Hermas - Accepted by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Clement



The Didache - Accepted by Clement



The Apocalypse of Peter - accepted by Clement



The Acts of Paul - Accepted by Clement, and appears in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Arabic translations



Gospel of Hebrews - Accepted by Clement. Accepted by Muratorian Canon of 190
which excluded Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and included The Apocaplypse of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon.


So let's see Simon



Rejected by Clement2 Timothy , James, 2 Peter , 2 John ,3 John.



Then he accepted-- The Apocalypse of Peter ,The Acts of Paul , Gospel of Hebrews

Looks like the scriptures neede a council to make a final decision

 

[Trento]

No. The council APPROVED the books that were already in use.

So again, Biblical evidence requires you to refer to Bible passages which you did not do here.



.

What was in use?

If you study the Fathers and Divided into time periods, here is what the Fathers thought:
30 a.d. - 160 a.d.

Summary - The New Testament is not clearly distinguished from other Christian writings.
Gospels - Generally accepted by 130
Justin Martyr's "Gospels" contain apocryphal material
Polycarp was the first to use the four Gospels we have today.
Pauline Writings - Generally accepted by 130, though quotations from them are rarely introduced as scriptural.
Acts - Scarcely known or quoted from
Philippians, 1 Timothy - Rejected as scriptural by Justin Martyr
2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon - Rejected as scriptural by Polycarp and Justin Martyr
Hebrews - Not considered canonical by majority, and expressly rejected as scriptural by Polycarp and Justin Martyr
James - Not considered canonical, and never quoted from; expressly rejected as scriptural by Polycarp and Justin Martyr
1 Peter - Not considered canonical
2 Peter - Not considered canonical and never cited
1,2,3 John - Not considered canonical and rejected as scriptural by Justin Martyr, and partially rejected by Polycarp
Jude - Not considered canonical and rejected as scriptural by Polycarp and Justin Martyr
Revelation - not canonical and rejected as scriptural by Polycarp
Ignatius of Antioch was unaware of half the Gospels and the majority of the Pauline writings.

160 a.d.- 250 a.d.
Summary - Awareness of a Canon begins toward the end of the 2nd century. Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria were the first to use the phrase "New Testament" in the 2nd and 3rd century.
Gospels - Accepted
Acts - Gradually accepted
Pauline Writings - Accepted with certain exceptions
2 Timothy - Rejected by Clement
Philemon - Rejected by Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and Clement
Hebrews - Not considered canonical until the 4th century in the West. Disputed by Origen. First accepted by Clement.
James - Not canonical. First mentioned and disputed by Origen. Rejected by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement
1 Peter - Gradual acceptance. First accepted by Irenaeus and Clement
2 Peter - Not canonical. First mentioned and disputed by Origen. Rejected by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement
1 John - Gradual acceptance. First accepted by Irenaeus, and rejected by Origen.
2 John - Not canonical. Disputed by Origen and rejected by Tertullian and Clement
3 John - Not canonical. Disputed by Origen and rejected by Tertullian and Clement
Jude - Gradual acceptance. Accepted by Clement and rejected by Origen.
Revelation - Gradual acceptance. First accepted by Clement and rejected by the Barococcio Canon of 206
Epistle of Barnabas - Accepted by Clement
Shepherd of Hermas - Accepted by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Clement
The Didache - Accepted by Clement
The Apocalypse of Peter - accepted by Clement
The Acts of Paul - Accepted by Clement, and appears in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Arabic translations
Gospel of Hebrews - Accepted by Clement. Accepted by Muratorian Canon of 190 which excluded Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and included The Apocaplypse of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon.

250 a.d. – 325 a.d.Summary - The “Catholic epistles” and Revelation are still being disputed
The “Catholic,” or general, epistles are the terms sometimes used for the letters written by James, Peter, John, and Jude. They are so called because they are addressed to Christians in general, not to any church or person in particular such as the epistles to the Corinthians, Thessalonians etc. The word "catholic" originated from Greek and then Latin words which simply meant “throughout the whole.”
Gospels, Acts, Pauline Writings - Accepted
Hebrews - Accepted in the East. Disputed and rejected in the West.
James - Disputed and rejected in the East, and rejected in the West.
1 Peter - Fairly well accepted
2 Peter - Still disputed
1 John - Fairly well accepted
2, 3 John, Jude - Still disputed
Revelation - Disputed, especially in the East. Rejected by Dionysius

Council of Nicaea (325 a.d.)
Questions canonicity of James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude

From 325 a.d. to Council of Carthage (397 a.d.)
Summary - St. Athanasius first lists our present 27 New Testament books as such in 367 a.d. Disputes still persist concerning several books, almost right up until 397, when Canon is authoritatively closed.
Gospels, Acts, Pauline Writings, 1 Peter, 1 John - Accepted
Hebrews - Eventually accepted in West
James - Slow acceptance. Not even quoted in the West until around 350 a.d.!
2 Peter - Eventually accepted
2, 3 John, Jude - Eventually accepted
Revelation - Eventually accepted. Rejected by Cyril, John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen
Epistle of Barnabas - Accepted by Codex Sinaiticus in late 4th century
Shepherd of Hermas - Accepted by Codex Sinaiticus in late 4th century. Used as a textbook for catechumens (those studying to become Christian).
1 Clement, 2 Clement - Accepted by Codex Alexandrinus in late 5th century!

 

[Albion]

What was in use?

First of course, the OT. That's a majority of the Bible. And as for the NT, the Christian churches used and treated as inspired the Gospels--long before the councils and canonization, etc. And Paul's letters were universally accepted.

So all that was not in general use, excluding the Gnostic writings, etc. which were clearly a different kind of Christianity, were three of the last books of the NT, and only one of them--Revelation--is ever referred to in order to settle any doctrinal matter.

What this means is that one can make a technical talking point about the origin of "The Bible" since that term refers to a single volume comprising all the various books, but in reality the Holy Scriptures were there, accepted, and in place long before any of the councils you've been reporting on.