Magic Puppet Theory

This is normally where the Saturday = the true Bible sabbath people start showing up....
...And claiming that the Christian Church that existed in 300 A.D. codified that Sunday was sacred.
...Thus putting to spoil the true sabbath of God.

God is the only Actor in this show. All others as well.

Constantine was an unbeliever, until he converted. He didn't introduce anything, he was the enforcer of whatever the bishops decided upon.

Didn't he wait until he was on his deathbed to get baptized? Doesn't sound like Peter said it should be. The answer of a good conscience toward God.

Montalban said:

The magic puppet theory.

In talking about the formation of the Bible (which took place some 200 years or more after Jesus) I ask people how God worked with the church.

Some say that God can work with whomever he chooses.

I've heard it said that even by this time the church had already fallen into apostasy (some say it was changed by Constantine).

I believe this can be summed up in the 'Magic Puppet Theory'

It's a belief that God just worked these people and got them to compile a bible as a puppet-master manipulates his charges.

The church, if it was already apostate seems to just be manipulated into acting.

Of course, if it wasn't 'apostate' by this time then the theorists open themselves to me and others using evidence from writers of the church for those first centuries.

Click to expand...

This is not the mainline Protestant position i don't think but some Protestants groups definitely minimize the relationship (and authority regarding a norm for their faith) between the Church, Scripture and Tradition for sure. Two issues come to mind regarding the criteria the Church employed. One, she collected the testimonies of the composition of a text by an apostle or someone in his name and secondly judged the content of the writing according to the tradition she received from the apostles. The differences or fluctuations followed the differences in the attribution of apostolicity to a writing. Eventually the Church fixed the canon and therefore the tradition. This process shows the interrelationship between Scripture, Church, and Tradition and the cooperation between them rather than competition all under the promised guidance of the Paraclete.

Catholics sometimes give the false impression especially when engaged in apologetics that the Church created the Canon and endowed it with authority. The Church and Magisterium rather recognized the truth established by God's action and submitted to it and are responsible for it and therefore proclaimed it with authority. Scripture contains everything however the Church fathers repetitively claimed it could only be read correctly with tradition in the Church for its proper understanding. The insistence on the role of tradition was viewed as a safeguard of the Gospel's purity, quite the opposite of what some Protestants attribute to tradition.

I think one of the major differences between Protestants and RC/EO Christians regards the Church not Scripture. We all agree (i think) that Scripture has a privileged role as an objective rule but this does not equate to a Sola Scripture practice nor does it bring Scripture into opposition with the role of the Church. Protestants want or see their churches renewing herself by the confrontation with the Word of God while RC/EO along with the fathers of the Church historically see the church as a continuous communication through space and time of the mystical community derived from the Lord's institution and Pentecost. Tradition is not just a mechanical transmission of a passive deposit.

Its a difference in the concept of authority itself.