Pinning down the Apostasy

James the Persian · Jul 20, 2006

Victor said:
First off the Council of Nicea was prompted by Hosius of Cordova . Many of the emperors were highly influenced by their advisors.

So what? In fact, the vast majority of Councils weren't called by the Pope. Most objections, philosophical skirmishes, etc. were done from outside the Church and some even from within. St. Jerome (a Doctor of the Church) for example used to pound on St. Agustine for this or that and it hardly even reached Rome. Sometimes matters get resolved in the lower ranks without the need for a Council. And yes :yes: politics did have an influence on the Church. But this actually gives me, James, Scott, and millions of others more of a reason to believe in the Church. Why? Because sometimes it was a bloody mess and yet something good came from it. Not once, twice, or thrice, but consistanly time and time again. Sure sounds like the HS at work here.

That is true. Pope Sylvester sent his delegates instead. He did that for a previous Council (Council of Arles) as well and one after the Council of Nicea that has currently slipped my mind at the moment. In short, Ecumenical Councils were approved by Rome. Perhaps you imagine Councils as a lets gather all Bishops together and vote? This was actually uncommon. I cant think of one Council that had all Bishops in attendance. In fact, some Councils didnt even have over half the Bishops in attendance. So it wasnt lets gather all bishops but rather lets gather as many as we can and dialogue. Although the Pope did attend most of the ones we submit to, he didnt have to attend to approve it.

Although I would like to continue, Im afraid its going off topic. If you are truly interested in how Catholics resolved issues I could clarify further in the Catholic section or wherever you wish.

Peace,
~Victor

Victor,

I so want to answer this post because your understanding of the history of the Ecumenical Councils seems somewhat off but that would be to take the thread off topic (and though I have no interest in the debate as it currently stands I ought not to do that). Would you contribute if I started a thread on the Ecumenical Councils elsewhere and, if so, where do you think I should put it? In the Catholic parent forum or somewhere where other Christians can contribute?

James

sojourner · Jul 20, 2006

Polaris said:
You didn't answer my question. Just because the men who selected the texts didn't hold apostolic authority doesn't mean that they were completely incapable of making an honest effort at compiling apostolic writings. There must have been some reasonable explanation as to why they chose to include the four gospels.

Oh, sorry. Let me restate it then. Because some "rather large contingent of Biblical scholars" came up with some theory about the authorship of the gospels still doesn't prove that they weren't written under the direction of the Apostles.

I don't need to prove to anyone why I believe the four gospels are credible accounts of the life of Jesus and his ministry. They are not attempts at establishing doctrine -- they are historical accounts of Jesus' life, they are in complete agreement concerning the major events of Jesus' life and ministry, and modern-day apostles have confirmed the truths that they contain. I have no reason to question their credibility.

Many post-apostolic writings on the other hand are indeed written with the attempt to declare official doctrinal truths. I don't believe Bishops possessed proper authority to do that. To provide historical accounts and quote the apostles is one thing, but to actively attempt to declare official doctrinal truths without proper authority is entirely different.

You're misdirecting. Part of the criteria you listed for the acceptance of the authority of the canonical gospels was that they were written by an apostle, or at least the writing was supervised by an apostle. When I provided evidence to the contrary, you then made an attempt to pin their qualification, not on the authorship, but upon their inclusion in the canon. You wonder how did they get selected to be in the canon? As you suggest in your quotation above, you're pinning a lot of creedence upon the apostolicity of the gospels, suggesting that they were included in the canon precisely because they must have been apostolic (as if that must have been the deteriming factor for their inclusion, on the part of the council that set the canon.) Now you're trying to say that it doesn't really matter if they were selected by people who had no authority to select them in the first place!

It certainly doesn't prove, by any stretch of the imagination, that they were, either.

We're not talking about whether they are credible accounts, we're talking specifically about their apostolicity, one of the criteria you insist must be present in order to determine their credibility. I don't maintain that they must be apostolic in order to be credible. But, apparently, you do.

Yet, the Church does use them as the authoritative basis for formulating doctrine. If it's going to do that, then the gospels had better be authoritative, based upon the criteria you provided -- apostolicity.

You should. If you're questioning the credibility of those who compiled them, you should seriously question the credibility of those who wrote them, since it is by the very fact that they are part of the canon that they are even considered to be scripture in the first place. The two processes must go hand-in-hand. If an apostate person said they were scripture, how can you trust that decision? The compelling evidence, then, must lie with tan apostolic source. We can't prove the source to be apostolic. In fact, we can come closer to proving that they weren't apostolic. I don't understand how (given your stance on the apostasy, as well as the criteria you provided for the gospels' credibility) this doesn't alarm you.

But that isn't all that is happening with the gospels. While they are an attempt at historical accounts, that historicity is imparted from a theological standpoint, not a sociaological or archaeological standpoint. The gospels are, by their very nature, theological treatises on the life and ministry of Jesus, not just historical accounts. And, as I said before, the Church does use them to inform its doctrinal stances. Therefore, if bishops do not have the authority to formulate doctrine, why do you consider that they had the authority to include them in the canon in the first place? How are you comfortably sure that the theological stance and presentation of the gospels is accurate? It cannot be their agreement with each other, since, in the widely-accepted two-document theory, they would necessarily agree with each other. Since, however, we cannot determine that the authorship of either Mark or Q was apostolic, and since we're reasonably sure that at least Mark's author was not an eyewitness to the Christ-event, how can we trust that the theological stance of the communities that produced these documents was not apostate? We don't know if the Q community was under the direction of an apostle.

None of this is a problem if one doesn't hold to the apostasy. However, it becomes a big problem (or should) if one cannot be assured that the formation of these doctrinally important documents was apostolic.

Quiddity · Jul 20, 2006

JamesThePersian said:
Victor,

I so want to answer this post because your understanding of the history of the Ecumenical Councils seems somewhat off but that would be to take the thread off topic (and though I have no interest in the debate as it currently stands I ought not to do that). Would you contribute if I started a thread on the Ecumenical Councils elsewhere and, if so, where do you think I should put it? In the Catholic parent forum or somewhere where other Christians can contribute?

James

Put it under "Same Faith Debates" and title it: "Catholics: Ecumenical Councils. I await your corrections of my misunderstandings.

Quiddity · Jul 20, 2006

Polaris said:
Sure, I'm willing to hear, consider, and compare Catholic interpretation against what I believe and attempt to draw reasonable conclusions based on that. I'm also willing to consider history, but know that I don't view the writings of Bishops as authorative as you do.
[/color][/color]

Sure, other than some questions with #3 I have no problem with the rest.

Good to hear. Now what direction would you like to take the thread in?

Polaris · Jul 20, 2006

sojourner said:
You're misdirecting. Part of the criteria you listed for the acceptance of the authority of the canonical gospels was that they were written by an apostle, or at least the writing was supervised by an apostle. When I provided evidence to the contrary, you then made an attempt to pin their qualification, not on the authorship, but upon their inclusion in the canon. You wonder how did they get selected to be in the canon? As you suggest in your quotation above, you're pinning a lot of creedence upon the apostolicity of the gospels, suggesting that they were included in the canon precisely because they must have been apostolic (as if that must have been the deteriming factor for their inclusion, on the part of the council that set the canon.) Now you're trying to say that it doesn't really matter if they were selected by people who had no authority to select them in the first place!

I'll try to keep this simple:

- I believe the men who put together the canon were good honest men.
- I believe they selected texts that they believed were true and accurate teachings of Jesus and the apostles.
- They obviously had reason to trust the gospels as being accurate accounts of Jesus' ministry.
- I believe the four gospels were written by apostles or under their direction.

sojourner said:
We're not talking about whether they are credible accounts, we're talking specifically about their apostolicity, one of the criteria you insist must be present in order to determine their credibility. I don't maintain that they must be apostolic in order to be credible. But, apparently, you do.

I don't maintain that the gospels MUST have been written by the apostles in order to be credible. As long as the gospels are accurate accounts of Jesus' ministry and that the teachings they convey are in harmony with the doctrines taught by Jesus and the Apostles, I have every reason to consider them as authorative.

sojourner said:
Yet, the Church does use them as the authoritative basis for formulating doctrine. If it's going to do that, then the gospels had better be authoritative, based upon the criteria you provided -- apostolicity.

They're used as a basis for doctrine because they contain quotes and teachings from Jesus himself, not because of who wrote them. A text doesn't necessarily have to be written by an apostle to be true and authorative. As long has it is an honest and accurate account of Christ's life and teachings, it really doesn't matter to me who wrote it (though I do believe the gospels were written under the direction of the apostles).

sojourner said:
You should. If you're questioning the credibility of those who compiled them, you should seriously question the credibility of those who wrote them, since it is by the very fact that they are part of the canon that they are even considered to be scripture in the first place. The two processes must go hand-in-hand. If an apostate person said they were scripture, how can you trust that decision? The compelling evidence, then, must lie with tan apostolic source. We can't prove the source to be apostolic. In fact, we can come closer to proving that they weren't apostolic. I don't understand how (given your stance on the apostasy, as well as the criteria you provided for the gospels' credibility) this doesn't alarm you.

I don't question the credibility of those who compiled them. I question their authority concerning their own interpretation of doctrinal truths, but when all they're doing is compiling writings, and records of important events and teachings, then as long as their honest men, I trust the texts they've compiled. I believe they were honest men.

sojourner said:
But that isn't all that is happening with the gospels. While they are an attempt at historical accounts, that historicity is imparted from a theological standpoint, not a sociaological or archaeological standpoint. The gospels are, by their very nature, theological treatises on the life and ministry of Jesus, not just historical accounts. And, as I said before, the Church does use them to inform its doctrinal stances. Therefore, if bishops do not have the authority to formulate doctrine, why do you consider that they had the authority to include them in the canon in the first place? How are you comfortably sure that the theological stance and presentation of the gospels is accurate? It cannot be their agreement with each other, since, in the widely-accepted two-document theory, they would necessarily agree with each other. Since, however, we cannot determine that the authorship of either Mark or Q was apostolic, and since we're reasonably sure that at least Mark's author was not an eyewitness to the Christ-event, how can we trust that the theological stance of the communities that produced these documents was not apostate? We don't know if the Q community was under the direction of an apostle.

But they are historical accounts. What makes them theological is that they contain quotes and teachings that Christ himself declared. As long as their accounts are accurate, what makes the gospels authorative and holy is that they contain the true teachings of Christ.

sojourner said:
None of this is a problem if one doesn't hold to the apostasy. However, it becomes a big problem (or should) if one cannot be assured that the formation of these doctrinally important documents was apostolic.

It actually doesn't pose a problem at all. I believe the gospels are accurate accounts of Christs teachings, period, independent of who wrote them. Therefore they are authorative -- from Christ himself. I believe the other books of the NT contain the teachings of the apostles and are therefore authorative. If you read my earlier posts you'll also see that I believe in modern-day revelation and modern-day apostles who can authoratively declare and clarify any doctrinal truths that may have been lost in the compilation of the biblical canon. So I'm not too worried about the ambiguities concerning the formation of the biblical canon -- I have living apostles to turn to for answers.

Polaris · Jul 20, 2006

Victor said:
Good to hear. Now what direction would you to take the thread in?

As I mentioned in the OP, the three conditions that I believe defined the apostasy were these:

1. Lack of apostolic authority

I understand that you believe the apostleship was absorbed into the bishopric. While I have a very difficult time finding scriptural compatability with such an idea, I acknowledge that such a transition may have been possible. However, without evidence of some sort of apostolic statement that indicated such a transition should occur it makes more sense to me to believe that true apostolic authority was taken with the death of the apostles. Concerning this point I believe either of our positions are potentially valid.

2. Lack of continuing revelation

While I agree with you that new revelation ended with the death of the apostles, what I really have a hard time understanding is why you believe that such revelation has ended permanantly. I understand your claims of "whole faith" and "all truth" being promised, but to claim that was completely fulfilled at the time of the apostles doesn't make sense to me. To claim that we have everything that God ever intended to reveal to man is to say that He has no more beneficial information to share with us, and that makes absolutely no sense to me. A God of infinite knowledge has nothing more of benefit to teach us? That's hard to swallow, especially in light of NT passages that seem to imply the continual need and existance of prophets. If this were really a true principle, I'm shocked that no apostle ever officially declared an end to new revelation. Who then declared it and why should I trust him?

The other thing that I find hard to understand is that you claim the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, yet you deny the need for or existance of public revelation. How does the Holy Spirit guide the church if not by revelation? (maybe I'm still fuzzy on your notion of "public" verses "private" revelation)

3. Corruption of true doctrines

This point is dependant on the first two. There are several doctrines in the RCC and EOC churches that I view as corrupted from that taught by the apostles. But if proper authority and the true guidance of the Holy Spirit really did remain with the church after the apostles then I'd concede that those doctrines must be correct.

Obviously the main questions and concerns that I have are regarding #2. I'm genuinely interested to hear your thoughts. If you have other points that you would like to address I'd be happy to oblidge.

Halcyon · Jul 20, 2006

Polaris said:
You didn't answer my question. Just because the men who selected the texts didn't hold apostolic authority doesn't mean that they were completely incapable of making an honest effort at compiling apostolic writings. There must have been some reasonable explanation as to why they chose to include the four gospels.

I've been waiting for someone to bring this up for ages, because i find it hilarious. The four gospels were chosen because they supported the orthodox viewpoint, the other gospels (and it is speculated that there were upwards of 30 at the time of canonical selection) were rejected. I don't find that funny, i find it fair.

What i find funny if the reason for there being four gospels. We all know it was St. Irenaeus (mid-late second century) who chose the gospels and declared them divinely inspired, but why only four? Well;

Irenaeus said:
There are four principle winds, four pillars that hold up the sky, and four corners of the universe; therefore, it is only right that there be four gospels.

Brilliant. Four gospels because there are four points on the compass, four winds etc. :biglaugh: It didn't matter if other texts were relevant, because there are only four winds...

Polaris · Jul 20, 2006

Halcyon said:
I've been waiting for someone to bring this up for ages, because i find it hilarious. The four gospels were chosen because they supported the orthodox viewpoint, the other gospels (and it is speculated that there were upwards of 30 at the time of canonical selection) were rejected. I don't find that funny, i find it fair.

There definitely may be some truth in that, it makes sense that they would have selected the texts that they believed best reflected their understanding of the truth. What I trust and hope they didn't do was alter the texts to emphasize their beliefs. I trust that the gospels that they chose are indeed accurate accounts of Christ's ministry and teachings.

Halcyon said:
What i find funny if the reason for there being four gospels. We all know it was St. Irenaeus (mid-late second century) who chose the gospels and declared them divinely inspired, but why only four? Well;

Brilliant. Four gospels because there are four points on the compass, four winds etc. :biglaugh: It didn't matter if other texts were relevant, because there are only four winds...

There was probably more to it than that, but I see what you're saying. There likely were many writings that were in reality worthy of canonization that simply weren't included. Could you imagine having 30 gospels in the NT? Unless they all provided significant additional insights into Christ's life and ministry, that's a lot of reduntant information. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to be able to read all the different accounts.

Halcyon · Jul 20, 2006

Polaris said:
There definitely may be some truth in that, it makes sense that they would have selected the texts that they believed best reflected their understanding of the truth. What I trust and hope they didn't do was alter the texts to emphasize their beliefs. I trust that the gospels that they chose are indeed accurate accounts of Christ's ministry and teachings.

And how do you feel about the idea that they wrote them themselves? Many speculate that the Pastoral epistles were written by Irenaeus himself, to emphasise his viewpoint.

Polaris said:
There was probably more to it than that, but I see what you're saying.

No, that was unfortunately the extent of it. Irenaeus chose them and that was his "reasoning".

Polaris said:
There likely were many writings that were in reality worthy of canonization that simply weren't included. Could you imagine having 30 gospels in the NT? Unless they all provided significant additional insights into Christ's life and ministry, that's a lot of reduntant information. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to be able to read all the different accounts.

Well, there really isn't a need for the three synoptics, they all say the same thing. But i get your point.
I'd doubt you would really like to read those other gospels, they'd only disappoint. But go here if you're still interested. It has the Gospels of Thomas, Peter, Egyptions, Hebrews, Ebionites and Nazoreans within the NT timeframe, and many that may have been written later.

Quiddity · Jul 20, 2006

Polaris said:
1. Lack of apostolic authority

I understand that you believe the apostleship was absorbed into the bishopric. While I have a very difficult time finding scriptural compatability with such an idea, I acknowledge that such a transition may have been possible. However, without evidence of some sort of apostolic statement that indicated such a transition should occur it makes more sense to me to believe that true apostolic authority was taken with the death of the apostles. Concerning this point I believe either of our positions are potentially valid.

Lost Apostolic authority flies in the face of the following verses:
Matt 16:18
On this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Matt 28:20
Behold, I will be with you always, even until the end of the world
John 14:16
The Father...will give you another Advocate to be with you always
John 14:26
The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all I have told you
John 16:13
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth

Not only does a complete Apostasy in complete contradiction with the following, but extracting that a complete Apostasy is found in the following:
Matthew 24:4-12; Mark 13:21-23; Luke 21:7-8; Acts 20:29-30; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; 2 Timothy 3:1-7, 4:1-4; 2 Peter 2:1-3; and Jude 17-19.
Say nothing of a complete Apostasy. Can you show me where any biblical writer notes this complete Apostasy?

Historical:

Pope Clement I (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80])
"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry."

Polaris said:
2. Lack of continuing revelation
The other thing that I find hard to understand is that you claim the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, yet you deny the need for or existance of public revelation. How does the Holy Spirit guide the church if not by revelation? (maybe I'm still fuzzy on your notion of "public" verses "private" revelation)

In the same way that I would guide me son not to fall from his bike. I'm not sure what it is you are not understanding here.

Polaris said:
3. Corruption of true doctrines

This point is dependant on the first two. There are several doctrines in the RCC and EOC churches that I view as corrupted from that taught by the apostles. But if proper authority and the true guidance of the Holy Spirit really did remain with the church after the apostles then I'd concede that those doctrines must be correct.

If the Apostasy didn't happen, your interpretations fall with it. As you are already aware.

This should be a good start.

Polaris · Jul 20, 2006

Victor said:
Lost Apostolic authority flies in the face of the following verses:

At least according to your interpretation of these verses. The problem is there are several ways that these verses could reasonably be interpreted. Let me give you my interpretation and see if you find any major flaws.

Victor said:
Matt 16:18
On this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

First, "gates of hell" should more accurately be stated "gates of hades". Your interpretation suggests that the verse says this: the influence of the devil will never succeed in leading the church astray.

That's a potentially valid interpretation, but I find this one to make more sense: the gates of death will not prevail against the church, implying that the blessings and influence of Christ's church will extend beyond the grave.

While I believe both are potentially valid interpretations, "gates of death" seems a better fit for "gates of hades" than "influence of the devil" is, especially considering the ancient Greek in which it was written.

Victor said:
Matt 28:20
Behold, I will be with you always, even until the end of the world
John 14:16
The Father...will give you another Advocate to be with you always
John 14:26
The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all I have told you
John 16:13
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth

In each of these passages Jesus is speaking directly to the Twelve, not necessarily the church in general. Before his crucifixion he clearly intended to assure his disciples that though he would be killed, he would never leave them. I believe these passages were given more to calm the fears and anxieties of the original Twelve (which must have been nearly unbearable considering their little experience and the monumental responsibility that rested upon them, not to mention the severe persecution that was inevitable) than to serve as a declaration of unending apostolic authority for the general church.

Victor said:
Not only does a complete Apostasy in complete contradiction with the following, but extracting that a complete Apostasy is found in the following:
Matthew 24:4-12; Mark 13:21-23; Luke 21:7-8; Acts 20:29-30; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; 2 Timothy 3:1-7, 4:1-4; 2 Peter 2:1-3; and Jude 17-19.
Say nothing of a complete Apostasy. Can you show me where any biblical writer notes this complete Apostasy?

You're right, these verses don't explicitly say anything about a complete apostasy. But 2 Thessalonians 2:3 sure sounds like it implies one. Remember, when this epistle was written there were already minor apostasies and heresies occurring all over the place. This verse clearly refers to some large-scale falling away -- "that day shall not come except there come a falling away first".

Victor said:
Pope Clement I (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80])
"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry."

I have no problems with this statement by Clement. It actually confirms two of my points:

1. The offices of apostle and bishop are separate and distinct offices of authority.
2. The apostles knew the apostasy was inevitable -- they knew the apostleship was soon to be taken. So, they did the only thing they could do... provide instructions concerning the perpetuation of bishops and hope that tradition would succeed in preserving the truth. And for the most part it has.

Victor said:
In the same way that I would guide me son not to fall from his bike. I'm not sure what it is you are not understanding here.

I like your analogy. Let's pursue it a little. As a father you'd teach your son the fundamentals about riding a bike: how to start, how to turn, how to stop, how to keep your balance, etc. Then you'd take him somewhere safe and let him go. After a while he'll get the hang of it and get to be pretty good at riding his bike. As he gets more comfortable on the bike and wants to ride somewhere other than your driveway you'd probably teach him about safely crossing streets, stop lights, stop signs, and other basic traffic safety. Then when you feel he's ready you let him venture out. He's likely to have some minor accidents and even come back with questions concerning different circumstances that he encountered and you'll patiently hear his concerns and answer his questions. Eventually he'll get to be pretty good at riding the bike and you'll trust him enough to go most places he desires to go. Then he turns 16. Now he wants to drive a car. At some point you decide that he's ready for that responsibility so you begin teaching him how to drive. Similar to his bike experiences he'll likely have many questions concerning different new and unique cirucumstances that he faces and you'll be able to do your best to answer his questions until he's about as good a driver as you are.

Our situation isn't that much different. As we progress and as we encounter new and challenging circumstances we become ready and in need of new knowledge and inspired guidance from God. It doesn't make sense that God would cap off the flow of information and revelation. He loves us and clearly has more that he could teach us. I believe he has more he wants to teach us as we become prepared to receive it.

Pinning down the Apostasy

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Polaris

Active Member

Polaris

Active Member

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers

Polaris

Active Member

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Polaris

Active Member