Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Articuli Fidei: Critical issues concerning infallibility and the development of doctrine – the historical roots

Articuli Fidei: Critical issues concerning infallibility and the development of doctrine – the historical roots

I just found this blog because someone came here from there. It looks very interesting, as I see the last several posts are about the author's struggle with issues of Roman Catholicism vs. protestantism, after having converted to Catholicism several years ago, and an apparent decision to no longer attend the Roman Catholic Church. I am interested to find out the rest of the story. I haven't read it carefully yet.

UPDATE: it appears that David Waltz, the author of the above blog, does not have issues with all of the Catholic doctrines, but mainly he 'can no longer affirm Papal infallibility, nor the inherit infallibility of the Ecumenical councils.'
Also, I was very surprised to see that David has my blog listed in his side bar, and under 'reformed links' too! I think the reformed (Calvinist) guys would think I should be under 'unreformable' as we've had some discussions about Calvinism here and on other blogs, and I am NOT a Calvinist, nor reformed, just a plain Baptist, and not Arminian either, as far as I can figure out what that means.

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why a Baptist? Why not a Methodist, or Lutheran, or etc.?

Jennie said...

Why am I a Baptist? Well...My mother was Roman Catholic and my father was agnostic when I was a child. My father became a christian by the witness of friend and my mom accepted Christ at that time too. Ever since, and after my marriage as well, I've attended mainly Baptist churches and non-denominational churches. I guess it's what I'm used to. My husband has always attended Baptist churches as well. They're not perfect, but none is.

Anonymous said...

But, do we not have an obligation to find that chuch which most clearly has the truth of Christianity or do we settle for a church that we "are used to?" Or does it not matter if we are Orthodox, Catholic, Baptist, Church of Christ, or whatever denomination?

Jennie said...

It's not only that we're used to the Baptist church, though that's part of it. We don't agree with many things in the Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist (which we attended for a couple of years and left because we weren't learning anything and there was no opportunity for outreach), or Catholic churches. We don't agree with everything Baptist either, but it's as close as we could come to what we believe is Biblical. The church we attend now is called Baptist but doesn't have alot of the cultural traditions that have become attached to Baptists in the South. It is very straightforward Biblical teaching. And we prayed and searched long and hard for a fellowship like this one, believe me.

Jennie said...

And that is not to say that others don't belong in the churches where they are; I think to some extent God places us in different denominations for different reasons, for His purposes. But we are responsible to search the scriptures and be sure we and our church are in the truth. We learn from each other, from the word, and from the Holy Spirit, not necessarily in that order. If we do this searching and seeking His will, praying for understanding, then I believe God will lead us to the right church. And I believe the local body is the main way that He uses the church, not a big organization and hierarchy.

Anonymous said...

As a searcher myself, how do we know that what you or I disagree with is actually wrong or that our interpretation of scripture is correct. For that matter, how do we know what is scripture when Catholics have one bible and Protestants have another. Who has the right Bible and how do we know?

Jennie said...

But, do we not have an obligation to find that chuch which most clearly has the truth of Christianity or do we settle for a church that we "are used to?" Or does it not matter if we are Orthodox, Catholic, Baptist, Church of Christ, or whatever denomination?

Yes, but this doesn't necessarily mean finding the right denomination. I believe it means finding the local church where you can learn from God's word, be encouraged by other believers in seeking to abide in Christ and obey His word, be an encouragement to the other believers, worship God in Spirit and truth, and so on.
It DOES matter which denomination we choose, in that it matters that we are in a church that is as close to the truth as we can find. But we're not on our own; God leads us, and we can also learn even from being in a less than correct church. God uses all our experiences for good if we keep seeking Him. We need to stay in His word and keep asking for wisdom and determine not to accept things that go against His word, as He reveals them to us. Sometimes we don't see errors right away, but as we grow we can discern them better and avoid them. We can speak out against the errors firmly and in love. That's part of learning and growing too.

Jennie said...

As a searcher myself, how do we know that what you or I disagree with is actually wrong or that our interpretation of scripture is correct. For that matter, how do we know what is scripture when Catholics have one bible and Protestants have another. Who has the right Bible and how do we know?

We don't always know for sure, but we have to go by the light that we have and keep praying for more, and seeking in His word. The Catholic and protestant Bibles are not that much different in the actual translations. The main difference is the Apocrypha, which the Catholic Bible has and the protestant ones don't. There's alot of debate about that, but I believe if you keep reading and praying for wisdom and faith, then God will reward you, because 'He is a rewarder of those who earnestly seek Him.' He has given us His scriptures as the place where we can find Him, and the Holy Spirit works through the Scriptures to teach us and change us. I personally don't believe the Apocrypha is inspired, because it contains things that are out of tune with scripture. It isn't exactly harmful, but its not as good as scripture.

Anonymous said...

"I personally don't believe the Apocrypha is inspired, because it contains things that are out of tune with scripture. It isn't exactly harmful, but its not as good as scripture." But how do you know it is out of tune when others say it is not. I mean who decides. Is there no reliable authority. When we removed books from the old testament how did we decide what to remove after they had been in for so long?

Jennie said...

But how do you know it is out of tune when others say it is not. I mean who decides. Is there no reliable authority. When we removed books from the old testament how did we decide what to remove after they had been in for so long?

I'm not an expert on canonicity. I've read some articles on it from both sides, protestant and Catholic.
I don't believe the protestants removed any books, I believe that the Roman Catholic church added the Apocrypha as scripture when before it had been included only as extra-Biblical material. Jerome (4th century, I think) thought of the Apocrypha as helpful, but not inspired. From what I read, it was the Council of Trent, after the Reformation began, that decided to include it as part of the canon. You may want to do some research on your own. There are lots of articles about it online.
I believe it is out of tune partly by what some protestant teachers have said, and partly by my own reading. I haven't read all of it, but from what I've read much of the Apocrypha includes fairy-tale-like elements with magic and other strange things. Not miracles that clearly glorify God as the scriptures have.

Anonymous said...

My understanding is that the scriptures the new testament writers used included those books taken out and that Trent merely confirmed them though they had been used all along and that they were taken out because they did not conform to reformation theology. I think the Orthodox have that same view.

Jennie said...

That is what the Roman Catholic church teaches, as I've read and been told by Catholics. That is not what the protestants teach as to what happened. You'll have to read both sides for yourself to make a determination. I don't think there's any evidence that the NT writers used the apocrypya as scripture or quoted from it in scripture.

Jennie said...

As to authority, the Holy Spirit calls those whom He wants to be teachers, pastors, and preachers, etc. He and His word are the authority and these flow through the ones who are called by faith. Jesus said 'My sheep hear my voice.' The succession is by the Spirit and the Word, not by bishop to bishop.

Anonymous said...

I took your advice and did some more research. It does look like the Septuagint was the version of the OT used by Christ and his apostles and the early Christians. It is starting to look like we did remove the books in question. Apparently the first vesions of the KJV had them and then later removed them as part of the canon. Still searching, but it is curious.

Jennie said...

The first versions of the KJV had them but apparently the Apocryphal books were clearly stated in the preface as being NOT canonical, but were there as extra information, just like notes were and are included.

Here's one article that explains this:
http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/apoc.html

Jennie said...

I'm not sure about the septuagint being the version Christ and the Apostles used or the significance of this. I'll check it out.

Jennie said...

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/apocrypha.html

Anonymous said...

I checked those sites. They seem far from objective.

Anonymous said...

I was looking through The New Oxford Annotated Bible With the Apocrypha, Expanded Edition, Revised Standard Version (Copyright 1973,1977 By Oxford University Press, INC.)and it says in the itroduction to the apocrypha "During the early Christian centuries most Greek and Latin Church Fathers, such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Cyprian, quoted passages from the Apocrypha as "Scripture," "divine Scripture,""inspired," and the like." Further it states, "In the fourth century many Greek Fathers (including Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius, and Epiphanius) came to recognize a distinction between the books in the Hebrew canon and the rest, though the latter were still customarily cited as Scripture."

Interesting stuff. I need to dig deeper. Wondering if we could be wrong.

Anonymous said...

Found this also. It is from a Catholic site but still interesting. http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html

Jennie said...

Interesting stuff. I need to dig deeper. Wondering if we could be wrong.

Which 'we' might that be? :)

What is the significance of including the Apocrypha in scripture? What does it add to our understanding that is not already in scripture? and does it add things that are not in accord with scripture? These are the questions that occur to me.

Jennie said...

Here's a search page for TurretinFan's blog for the word 'apocrypha'. He has alot of good discussion and information from both sides of the discussion. Of course, he is reformed, so you know where he stands on it.
I'd like to do a search on 'canon' and 'septuagint' as well. If you haven't been there, there is often lots of discussion from both sides in the comment section, and TF also quotes from Catholic apologists and discusses his reaction to them.

Anonymous said...

We, as in we protestants.

The signifcance is that if it is scripture then it no longer becomes a question of inclusion. I think it goes to the fundamental question of what is scripture. Who decides? Can we say it is not scripture because it does not seem to fit our theology? That would not seem to make sense. I believe we get our theolgy from scripture, therefore should'nt we first determine what is scripture objectively, independent of our theology?

Jennie said...

Well, it is fact that the Hebrews did not include the Apocryphal books in scripture and that the early fathers did not agree in calling all of them part of inspired scripture, but they were considered by some as useful books.

Jason Engwer wrote some quotes and commentary on the Church Fathers that includes what they said about the canon of scripture, called 'Catholic, but not Roman Catholic.' Apparently some fathers believed some of the Apocryphal books should be included, but had differing ideas about which ones; some believed none should be included. None have the same list as was finally included at Trent.

Jennie said...

I'm still wondering what is included in the Apocryphal books that made them so important to Catholics at Trent. I believe there is alot of positive references to using images in some of them. That is definitely out of line with scripture.
Maybe I will take the time to go back and read some of them and see how they compare to scripture. I've read only a couple plus portions of others.

Jennie said...

Here's a quote from Athanasius included in 'Catholic but not Roman Catholic:

"I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine...There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews...there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit" (Festal Letter 39:2-4, 39:7)

Here are some quotes from Jerome:
"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church." - Jerome (Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs).

"we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style." - Jerome (Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament, The Books of Samuel and Kings).