Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Tobit or not Tobit
My son gave me a REALLY big “Complete 100-Book Apocrypha” for Christmas. I read a few things there, then bought the very reasonable Kindle version.
Growing up Baptist, I barely knew the Apocrypha existed, other than being told that “it was stuff Catholics added” (turns out it was stuff Protestant sects removed).
Like the positions of most “post-Luther” sects, the answer is more complicated than that. The “canonical” books of the Christian Bible were established by the Council of Rome under Pope Damasus in 382 and affirmed many times.
The Catholic Church considers the “Canon of Augustine” as being “the Bible,” with the Old and New Testaments being the “core,” and the remaining books of the Augustinian Bible being “The Apocrypha” (more accurately, “Deuterocanonical”). If you want to dig a level deeper, here is a link to Augustine’s selections which are the Catholic Bible and considered “important” by LCMS Lutherans (Luther included in his translation).
Having struggled through “City of God,” I believe Augustine is a figure in church history that all denominations desiring to be called Christian need to consider. Sadly, American Protestantism largely ignores nearly all church history. The belief seems to be that the KJV and whatever more recent translations they select are THE Bible, and “history is bunk”. This is somewhat interesting as they are typically all about the LITERAL text with little concern as to how that text came to be. I found this to be interesting on the origin of the KJV.
While the current KJV is considered to be one of the best — if not THE best — translations, it was done (very carefully) by humans, published by humans, and therefore required some revisions due to errors. The following from the “origin” link above is an entertaining example. One word can really matter … as is often the case with “is” in theology and Clintonian legality.
Some errors in subsequent editions have become famous. Perhaps the most notorious example is the so-called “Wicked Bible” (1631), whose byname derives from the omission of “not” in the injunction against adultery in the Ten Commandments (“Thou shalt commit adultery”).
Back to Tobit. It is a short book written somewhat like a novel. It tells the story of a righteous man (Tobit) living in exile in Nineveh, who has a son (Tobias) who needs a wife. He goes on a journey with a “messenger” to Rages of Media where a relative, Raguel, has a daughter, Sarah.
On the way, they stop by the river Tigris and a fish leaps out. The messenger has Tobias cut out the heart, liver and bile. Tobias is informed that in case a demon is encountered, the heart and the liver can be burned, and the smoke will drive the demon away.
Coincidentally, it turns out that Sarah has been married to 7 men, but on their wedding nights they all “perished in the bride chamber”. As Tobias enters the bride’s chamber, realizing it must be a demon that killed the men, he burns incense with the heart and liver of the fish, and in the morning, all is well! The 14-day wedding feast is observed, and Tobias, Sarah and the messenger return to Tobit.
We discover that the “messenger,” Raphael, is one of the seven angels mentioned in Revelation 8:2–6. Sons are born and both Tobit and Tobias live long and prosperous lives!
The message is that if you live righteously as Tobit did, God will send His angel to watch over you, the forces of evil will be defeated, and you will live happily ever after. This doctrine is much more evident in the OT, whereas in the New, Jesus says many times that the more you follow him, the more trouble you will have, but to take heart because he has overcome the world.
Is Tobit “true”? Is Shakespeare “true”? Was the KJV Bible “true” before the errors were fixed, and is it a “true” translation now?
Religion, like life, is not as cut and dried as the more “fundamental” Christians today prefer. But the same Christians tell us that “baptism is only a symbol,” while the Bible they confess to be literally true says in 1 Peter 3:21, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”
To paraphrase Scotty, “I’m a computer scientist, not a theologian!”.
Deciding who will be in Heaven is up to Christ, not me, and I’d argue it’s not up to anyone on Earth to be “the one true church”. Proverbs 22:4 says “Humility is the fear of the Lord; its wages are riches and honor and life.”
Pride is its opposite, and I am among the Christians who believe it is the greatest sin because it was the sin of the Fall. Essentially, “not God’s way but mine”.
The origin of this quote is uncertain, but I fear it often applies to me:
“It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt.”
Published in Religion and Philosophy
I’m suggesting you prove a positive:
What’s your reason to think that among all those things not written down was some important piece of infallible apostolic teaching?
Because when you call a community a pillar, that’s a metaphor.
The Holy Spirit is.
The Apostles are.
But what is your reason to think that they conferred some of this infallibility on those who replaced them as church leaders?
Indeed. But which passage(s) support Magisterial infallibility?
Laying on of hands conveys infallibility? Where is that in the Bible?
Without any context, the best I can infer from Irenaeus here is that the church is a highly reliable indicator of what teaching is infallible, not that it has infallibility itself.
And here–same thing. (Certus/certa/certum can mean fixed or settled or reliable.)
But it would behoove me to study him more. I’ll add him to a list!
Oh, this again?
https://ricochet.com/394549/the-church-fathers-and-sola-scriptura/
As for Augustine specifically: I’ve written three more books on him than most other folks on Ricochet, and haven’t yet noticed an objection to SS. Still keeping my eyes open, and hoping to study one source in particular that might have something. Wish I had more time for him and the other Fathers!
Now take this quote here: “Manifestum est, admittit fides, approbat Ecclesia catholica, verum est: it is manifest; the faith grants it; the universal church approves it; it is true.”
In immediate context, “it” is the fact that Jesus was born. It appears he’s appealing to Scripture and church, which certainly does not mean that he holds the latter infallible alongside the former. Can’t say more without more time and more context.
Yes, it does. See every single instance of infallibility in the Bible from Moses to John.
Indeed.
Then stop disagreeing until you do understand.
I think it was not needed, and what not possible after the Apostles died.
Give me a reason to think otherwise.
Heresies arise–that’s a reason we need an infallible teaching. We have it. It’s the Bible.
What heresy is the Bible insufficient to refute?
SS always included such oral tradition as was included in the written Scriptures. This is not a new idea or a change.
Yes, John says that. And he says that these things he has written have been written or stand written–Greek gegraptai–so that we may believe and have life (John 20:31).
Where does he say that we also need this other information on the other things Jesus did in order to believe or have life, or that our joy may be complete (1 John 1:4), or for some other reason? Where does he say that someone else is maintaining that extra information infallibly?
And has some other thing Jesus did been cited in an infallible pronunciation from the Magisterium? Has that ever happened?
Tell me what part of oral teaching is included in the written Scriptures. What you appear to be saying is that all of the oral, Apostolic Tradition was written down, but nowhere in Scripture does it make that claim. Sola scriptura is self-refuting.
Did I say that she did? I was disputing your claim that her decision to sin and eat the forbidden fruit, and give it to Adam, didn’t affect others, to use your term.
What’s your reason to think that among all those things not written down was some important piece of infallible apostolic teaching?
Because, among other functions, the Church governs and the Church protects the deposit of Faith. There is no reason to think that the infallible judgment of the Church as exercised by a Council would not need to be exercised again. And it did. You’re not ignorant of history, so I presume you are aware of the many heresies which beset the early Church. Almost invariably, the heretics used Scripture to bolster their view. You can’t put the Scriptures on a stand and ask it questions and get an infallible answer. The proof of this is what I have said before a number of times here: with sola scriptura as a guiding doctrine, Protestants have utter doctrinal chaos and there are far more divisions within Protestantism than you will find in the Apostolic churches. As I mentioned before, when I left atheism and was coming back to Christianity, I was convinced the Catholic church was in error. But after attending a variety of Protestant sola scriptura denominations, I realized that there was just too much chaos. I could go down the street from one Protestant denomination and be told contradictory doctrines. “In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity” – but there’s no unity on what is considered essential. Are the Apostolic churches free from disagreement and division? No, but the differences are not nearly as great and the divisions nowhere near as numerous. The fruits of sola scriptura are poor.
Hard to be sure, but I suspect a fair chunk of the Gospels were oral tradition before Mark, Luke, and Matthew wrote them down. The basic summaries of the Gospel–things like 1 Corinthians 15–were no doubt passed around orally a lot.
Small, simple, but perfect example: Philippians 2:6-11. Often thought to be a hymn, this was almost certainly an oral teaching that made its way into the written Scriptures.
I’m not saying that at all.
I’m saying all the oral and Apostolic teaching we need was written down.
And I’m saying no one has the authority to write it down infallibly–not unless he also is able to write new Scripture, which he isn’t.
They used it inaccurately.
One proof of this is that in refuting them the church always cited Scripture as a sufficient refutation.
An interesting and important topic. I can’t recall very well what happened the last time we talked about this–or the last time I and someone else talked about it, if so it was. I’m also tired and busy and probably won’t even try to be thorough.
But I’ll make at least one observation: This might be evidence that there is something wrong with Protestantism and/or that we could really use an infallible authority. But that’s not proof that there is such an authority.
Who decides that with sola scriptura?
Of course the councils and Magisterium appealed to Scripture. But ultimately it was their authority which settled disputes. If sola scriptura had been the dominant doctrine in the early Church, we would have seen Arianism not refuted, but merely setting up as a new “church.” Because that’s what happens with sola scriptura – don’t agree with someone’s interpretation? Then just start your own church!
Tomorrow, Painter Jean!
Good night, if that’s your time zone!
It’s just past noon in Hong Kong, and I’m saving this thread for sometime my tomorrow morning.
But that is true of everyone. Our sin may affect others. That is the nature of sin. Eve tempted Adam with her action and words, but it caused him to do nothing. He had free will. Romans 5:12 – “Through one man (not woman) sin entered the world.” He is the key person, not Eve. Paul mentions the importance of Adam. He only uses Eve as one who was deceived.
What did? Foreign Tariffs? It has long been a Christian belief that God told Adam and Eve both to not eat of the fruit. The serpent tempted Eve, but she was not ignorant.
From Genesis 3 verse two.
2The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ ”
Then why did you state earlier that Eve’s sin didn’t affect others?
As an LCMS Lutheran that grew up Baptist, moved to ELCA (it said “Lutheran” on the label). I looked strongly at Catholic when ELCA went “Early Woke” (Gay “marriage”) , but the worship of Mary, the immaculate conception, the infallibility of the Pope ( when he speaks ex cathedra), lack of Biblical support ( Paul founded 14 churches … at least) also Andrew, Mark and James at least one each), the introduction of works into justification vs works as being fruits of the Holy Spirit, purgatory, etc lots of prayer and study led me to the LCMS church.
Luther never wanted to form a new church, he totally wanted to reform the Catholic Church, but the tie between church and state, and “personalities” (Luther’s unfortunately included) prevented that.
Confessional LCMS is very Liturgical, believes that Baptism saves (infant baptism), the sacrament is the true body and blood (closed communion), confession and absolution, etc Since Confessional LCMS is explicitly “not of this world”, it is increasingly more “militant” on issues like women’s ordination, homosexuality, abortion, trans, etc Thus it will likely split as the Catholic Church did big time in the Great Schism. Like most divorces, “who left who” is still an issue, so which one was the first “Protestant” church?
Thus it comes down to what is the churches one foundation? Obviously Christ, but then we discuss the “means” of becoming a Christian. The “thorn” (to many churches) of the “Thief on the Cross” makes it clear that Christ is “the Kingdom, the Temple (built in 3 days), the Way, the Truth, etc), but is the thief a “one off”, or as many Christian parents hope, can a “Prodigal Son” cry out with his dying breath, “Jesus, I believe, Lord save me! (or similar, Christ knows the heart).
There are always issues within churches … the Tridentine Mass churches are still “Catholic”, but they seem to heading “catholic” (although, since they are more traditional, they would argue more “true”)
As we see with Pope Francis, the Catholic Church seems to be “Wokening”. One of the negatives/positives of the Catholic Church is that unlike God, it changes. It was not until the 2nd Lateran Council that celibacy of priests was required. As we have seen with the priests abusing boys and the shortage of priests, this is one change that may need to be reversed. Peter clearly had a wife, as he had a Mother-in-law that Christ healed. An unmarried man with a Mother-in-law would be a harder truth to accept than the Resurrection!
The Church requires a foundation, and being founded on the FAITH confession of Matt 16:16 seems to align with the rest of the NT. Founding a church on a sinful human vs a confession of Christ as Lord seems problematic to all but the church organization that desires to be “the one and only”.
When scripture is not the foundation, then the fluid “foundation” is the decisions of various Saints, Popes, Councils, etc … will homosexual women priests be a reality someday? Councils and popes may well decide such, but the scripture will not change.
Also, I’m such a bad sinner that the best I could hope for as a Catholic is eternal purgatory, since nobody likes me enough to pray me out!
When a person is deceived as Eve was, they may lead others into the same sin they committed. Yes, God told them both not eat from that tree but then the devil’s word got into her mind and she thought she was doing right. That is how deception works. People who know what God said become convinced otherwise and they fall into sin. The scripture says that Adam was not deceived but wilfully sinned.
I mean “ignorantly” as in unknowingly. She did mean to make Adam sin.
“Worship of Mary”? What a stupid insult. We don’t “worship” Mary, and it is a disgusting insult to suggest that we worship a creature instead of the Creator. In fact, the terms Catholics use make those distinctions: latria is the term for the worship due to God alone. Dulia is the honor and respect we give to saints and angels. Hyperdulia is the honor and respect we give to the Virgin Mary – it is a higher level, reflecting Mary’s decisive role in salvation history, as she bore the Son of God, the Saviour of the world. Dulia and hyperdulia are NEVER at the same level as the adoration reserved for God alone.
But your insults don’t stop there, do they? It was not until the 2nd Lateran Council that celibacy of priests was required. As we have seen with the priests abusing boys and the shortage of priests, this is one change that may need to be reversed. Let me make a wild guess and suggest that you don’t know the difference between a discipline and a doctrine. Celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. If you object to it, then presumably you object to St. Paul recommending it (and practicing it). As he says in First Corinthians: So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better. And because it’s a discipline, not a doctrine, there ARE married priests in the Catholic Church. There are several rites within the Catholic Church – the Latin rite (“Roman”) is just one. Byzantine Catholics and some of the other Eastern rite Catholics allow a married clergy (though not all – the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church has a celibate priesthood); so do others such as the Anglican ordinariate. Really, maybe you should refrain from criticizing Catholicism since you clearly know so little about it. Regarding the sex abuse crisis, since the rates of abuse in the Catholic Church are about the same as in Protestant denominations (and both are lower than rates of abuse in public schools), the ability to marry doesn’t appear to be a factor. Also, most of the Catholic cases involved post-pubescent minor males (ephebophilia). That is not the result of not being married! And the discipline of clerical celibacy goes back long before the 2nd Lateran Council. It was the ideal for both East and West by the time of the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325).
When scripture is not the foundation, then the fluid “foundation” is the decisions of various Saints, Popes, Councils, etc … will homosexual women priests be a reality someday?
More ignorance. What does the Bible itself say is the “pillar and foundation of truth”? The Church. The Church protects the deposit of Faith, which of course includes the Scriptures. No, the Church will never ordain women. The Church will never approve of “gay marriage.” This is in stark contrast to the large number of Protestant denominations, guided by sola scriptura, who have been doing those things for decades.
Also, I’m such a bad sinner that the best I could hope for as a Catholic is eternal purgatory, since nobody likes me enough to pray me out!
And yet more ignorance. There is no such thing as “eternal purgatory.” Even Protestants recognize purgatory – they just don’t call it by that term.
Wow, where does it say all of that in the Scriptures? With the exception of “Yes, God told them both not eat from that tree,” everything you say is just opinion. Isn’t that a bit rich, coming from someone who told me to “stick with what the Bible actually says”? And now you say that “She did mean to make Adam sin,” but earlier you claimed that her fall didn’t affect anyone else. So which is it?
Someone who knows what the Scriptures say with some reliability. And/or the church, which often enough comes to the same thing.
What do you mean? Scripture refuted the heretics, as those who kicked them out rightly said.
Do you mean that it was church authority that effected the kicking out?
I’m not following.
Arian churches still exist. Or at least one does–the Jehovah’s Witnesses. In the old days Arians were still hanging around in Europe; King Theodoric of Rome in the time of Boethius, I believe, was Arian.
There are also Unitarians, Christian Science, Mormons, Jesus-rejecting Jews, Muslims, and more. Do you think these things all happened because Protestantism did?
Is your point that church-splitting happens more with SS?
Well, I expect that’s true. But only means that some serious level of church authority is useful, especially if it’s infallible.
But is evidence that we could really use it evidence that it exists?
Even the devil knows the Scriptures, as we know from the temptation of Christ in the desert. And what churches are you referring to? Oneness Pentacostals? Episcopalians? How can Protestant denominations counter heresy, when they can’t even agree among themselves? Who has any authority?
Did Peter use the Old Testament to determine “God has shown me that I should not call any person profane or unclean”? (Acts 10:28) No. It was from a vision. This vision resulted in him baptizing Cornelius, a Gentile. Later, at the Council of Jerusalem, Peter related how the converted Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit just like the Jewish Christians had: “He [the Holy Spirit] made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.” (Acts 15: 9-11) So here is instruction about how to settle a matter that the Scriptures were unable to settle (you can see why – on one hand there is the prophet that St. James quotes later, but on the other hand, there are the requirements of the Mosaic law in Scripture). And Jesus gave the apostles the authority to bind and loose, conferring upon them the authority to exercise judgment. If all they needed was the Scriptures, then they would not have needed the authority to bind and loose.
There’s not one answer that covers the range that you have there. I would say “yes” in regards to Unitarians, Christian Scientists, and Mormons. Jesus-rejecting Jews are simply Jews – Judaism is not a Christian heresy. I think a good case can be made that the origin of Islam was a heresy based on distortions of both Christianity and Judaism, but obviously Protestantism wasn’t involved. But Islam doesn’t claim to be Christian.
I don’t know if I’d include it in a list of reasons to believe that the Church exercises authority (and that she has protection from doctrinal error, which is what infallibility is), but I would certainly offer it as a very sound reason to reject sola scriptura. Since Jesus desired unity, and sola scriptura seems to foster division and doctrinal confusion, making unity impossible, I don’t see it as a true doctrine based on its fruits (quite apart from seeing it as self-refuting).
I agree 100% with @painterjean in her comment #75. Do you really think we Catholics worship Mary @bill-berg? As was written – that is an insult, as is much else of the ignorance you spewed. Give it a rest, please.
Painter Jean, I need to wrap this up. I don’t like to promise to quit, but I’m making a mental note that the next comment should probably be my last detailed comment.
After that, depending on how the conversation goes, maybe I’ll let myself do one more trying to get to heart of the bigger issues.
Then I really should stop. (Should. Sometimes I keep going when I shouldn’t!)
Yes, and disobeys any applicable instructions.
The orthodox ones.
The Nicene Creed is a good way of knowing who’s who.
Refute them with scripture, and then, as needed, separate the wheat from any unrepentant chaff.
Don’t Catholics do the same thing?
Yes. It was new revelation. To an Apostle.
Those things have stopped. You know how I can tell they’ve stopped? I can tell because the Bible is not still being written.
In any case, there is plenty of relevant OT Scripture.
You are quite mistaken.
First, these were Apostles settling doctrine. These were the men who were still writing the Bible.
Second, they cited the Torah in their decision. Study their instructions to Gentile believers; these instructions are drawn from passages like Leviticus 17 and Genesis 9:4.
Obviously they had more than the already-written Scriptures. These men themselves wrote the Scriptures.
On Jesus-rejecting Judaism, consult Paul’s response to them.
How exactly did Sola Scriptura cause Mormons to add more scriptures?
It claims to be the true religion of Moses, David, and Jesus.
It’s not a reason. That’s not how sentences, logic, and evidence work.
Why not try spelling out your argument?
Your conclusion is something like “There is infallible authority in Church leadership, even after John died.”
Your premise is something like “This kind of authority is very helpful.”
How do you get from that premise to that conclusion? Is your premise something different? Is there another premise in there that you haven’t mentioned yet?
So it seems to you. It seems to me that Roman Catholicism’s claims to infallible authority have fostered immense division.
And there’s still nothing self-refuting about SS. If you have a new argument or a clarification of an old one, please enlighten me.
I only have a minute for this – I’ll take on the rest later. But I had to address the lines above: I don’t believe I was making an argument for infallibility in the Church after John died – though yes, I believe in that – so much as I was rejecting sola scriptura. If I were to launch into an argument about Church infallibility extending through the ages, I wouldn’t start with “This kind of authority is very helpful” as a premise. Yes, it is helpful, but that is not a premise I would use.
My point was that knowledge of the Scriptures, by itself, doesn’t guarantee orthodoxy. As I stated before, heretics used Scripture to support their heresies. You say that they “used it inaccurately,” but that’s just your opinion. You obviously interpret the Scriptures differently. So how, then, does Scripture decide between your interpretation and theirs?
Who decides what “orthodoxy” is?
The Southern Baptist Convention did not approve of a motion to add the Nicene Creed to the Baptist Faith & Message. Episcopalians, on the other hand, do say the Creed, though they are far out there with women’s ordination and LGBTQ approval. I could give other examples, but I don’t have a lot of time. The point is that it is not a reliable indicator of orthodoxy.
I’ll get to the rest of this when I can.
I do, of course. Feel free to send your questions.
Who are you to tell me I don’t have a monopoly on the truth?
My comments speak for themselves!
Let me straighten this out for you guys:
Forty-two.
Best thing I could find on the interwebs. : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_(number)
Both the Kabbalistic and Hitchhiker’s explanations are interesting.
I understand the Catholics desire distinction between “intercession: and “praying to”.
1 Peter 2:5 says ” For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
Since there is one mediator, it seems easy to see how protestants are misled by thinking there was one mediator, so praying to another mediator could be problematic.
As Christ teaches us how to pray in the Lord’s Prayer, he seems to suggest “Our Father”. (and since we are trinitarian, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) would also be scriptural.
I also understand the criticality of “the church” being the cornerstone of Catholicism. Apostolic succession being a critical factor.
Timothy 1 3-4 “As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith.”
I have no desire to offend. The word of Giod is often a “sword”, Ephesians 6:17 “Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”
Matt 10:34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
May the Lord bless you and keep you!