According to Catholic philosopher Mike Liccione:
I rely on the authority of the Church to know who Jesus was, what he said, and why it matters.
Notice how this is directly opposed to the viewpoint of the Gospel writers:
3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught (Lk 1:3-4).
31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (Jn 20:31).
Luke and John don’t point people to “the Church” to know who Jesus was, what he said, and why it matters. Rather, they direct people to their gospels for that information and assurance.
"Luke and John don’t point people to “the Church” to know who Jesus was, what he said, and why it matters. Rather, they direct people to their gospels for that information and assurance".
ReplyDeleteThis is nothing but a profound confusion of what Church is. You are trying to separate Luke and John from the (teaching) Church of their time. Good luck!!!
In Christianity, the apostles remain the foundation of the Church and hence, it is unwise to separate them from the Church. Therefore, a pointer to the apostles is a pointer to the Church.
It is interesting to note that while Luke clearly stated he was writing to Theophilus, you immediately conclude that he was directing people to his gospel but how he did this for everyone else, you do not state. So much for sola scriptura and your ability to interpret.
BTW, I checked over there to see if you contributed to the discussion; it did not seem you had the courage to be challenged.
Calvin put this Romish silliness to bed 500 years ago:
ReplyDeleteThese ravings are admirably refuted by a single expression of an apostle. Paul testifies that the Church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets," (Eph. 2: 20.) If the doctrine of the apostles and prophets is the foundation of the Church, the former must have had its certainty before the latter began to exist. (Institutes I.7)
Therefore, if Mr. Liccione is to be true to his assertion and Dozie is to maintain a singularity between church and apostles, then all roads lead not to the church – but to its foundation which is the writings of the prophets, as known to Paul and the writings of Paul and the Apostles, as know to us.
In other words, Liccione gets his certainty from the church which gets her certainty from the written scriptures. His final authority, according to the apostolic witness, is not the church but the Scripture.
Peace.
Dozie,
ReplyDeleteYou're deflecting both Liccione's specific claim as well as the specific claims of Luke and John. Can we rely on Luke's Gospel to know who Jesus was, what he said, and why it matters? Can we rely on John's Gospel know who Jesus was, what he said, and why it matters? Are those gospels inadequate sources for knowing who Jesus was, what he said, and why it matters? Do Luke and John warn the reader that their gospels are inadequate sources know who Jesus was, what he said, and why it matters? Deal with what they actually say. Deal with what they assure the readers in the verses I quoted.
"It is interesting to note that while Luke clearly stated he was writing to Theophilus, you immediately conclude that he was directing people to his gospel but how he did this for everyone else, you do not state. So much for sola scriptura and your ability to interpret."
He said his Gospel was a source of "certain" knowledge regarding what had been fulfilled. And that foreshadows Lk 24:
26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
His gospel is the record of those fulfillments. These are objective truths. Truths independent of the reader.
Dozie
ReplyDelete"This is nothing but a profound confusion of what Church is. You are trying to separate Luke and John from the (teaching) Church of their time. Good luck!!!"
They didn't send the reader to church to be taught these things. Rather, they taught the reader these things via their Gospels.
Dozie
ReplyDelete"BTW, I checked over there to see if you contributed to the discussion; it did not seem you had the courage to be challenged."
By parity of reason, Liccione lacks the courage to comment here.
Dozie said:
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to note that while Luke clearly stated he was writing to Theophilus, you immediately conclude that he was directing people to his gospel but how he did this for everyone else, you do not state. So much for sola scriptura and your ability to interpret.
Given the Greek term he uses and how it was used to describe a particular kind of historical account in an age of great interest in history and the writing of histories, Luke was writing a history in a very technical sense. This technical sense--one of origins and an explanation of them--necessarily entailed that it was written not only to Theophilus, but to all interested in the origin of the Gentile church.
Also, in Hebrews 13:7
ReplyDeletewe see that what distinguished the rulers (hegumeni) of the early church first and foremost was that they "spoke the word of God":
"Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation."
Notice that the writer did not say instead something like this: "who have distributed transubstantiatiated Eucharist unto you."
The Puritans used to say against high-church Anglicans that with their policy, "down goes the preaching and up go the candles!" - that is, the church liturgy supplants the Word of God.
ReplyDeleteThis is even more applicable to RC and EO churches whose lay members in pre-modern times often had very deficient kwowledge of the Bible, but knew quite well the outward details of church seremonies.
At that point, the Gospels only existed in the mouths of people in the Church. "What you were taught" was clearly not just the Gospels, but also a lot of oral instructions: what the Apostles said, what Timothy's grandma and mom said, what Paul said, what Ananias said to Paul, etc.. Pretty clearly Paul was not merely repeating what he had heard that Jesus had said, either, or his epistles would have been a lot shorter and consisted solely of Gospel quotes and greetings to the folks at home. Nor would Paul have said that the Church was "the pillar and ground of the Church."
ReplyDeleteYou're doing a great job of supporting the other guy's argument. I take it that this wasn't your intent.
"The pillar and ground of the truth," that is.
ReplyDeleteHeh, now I'm supporting your argument instead.... :)
"'What you were taught' was clearly not just the Gospels, but also a lot of oral instructions"
ReplyDeleteAnd what were those oral instructions? Paul tells us: "so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass." (Acts 26:22).
Banshee
ReplyDelete"At that point, the Gospels only existed in the mouths of people in the Church."
To the contrary, Mark's Gospel preexisted Luke's gospel. Indeed, Luke makes use of Mark.
In addition, Luke himself alludes to similar preexisting efforts in v1 of the Prologue.
And John is generally regarded as the last of the canonical gospels. And "at that point," oral tradition was not the only source of information by a long shot.
"'What you were taught' was clearly not just the Gospels, but also a lot of oral instructions."
And Luke's prologue implies the inadequacy of oral instruction. That's why he wrote a gospel. If Liccione is contending for the inadequacy of Scripture, Luke is contending for the inadequacy of oral tradition.
Moreover, both you and Dozie are dodging Liccione's statement. He said "I rely on the authority of the Church to know who Jesus was, what he said, and why it matters."
And he set that in studied contrast to the Bible.
How does his claim jive with the purpose statements of Luke and John? Do you agree with him that we can't rely on the Gospels to know who Jesus was, what he said, and why it matters–despite the purpose statements of Luke and John?
Regarding 1 Tim 3:15, that, in context, has reference to the church of Ephesus, not the church of Rome. So you ought to be Ephesian Catholics rather than Roman Catholics.
Dozie
ReplyDelete"It is interesting to note that while Luke clearly stated he was writing to Theophilus, you immediately conclude that he was directing people to his gospel but how he did this for everyone else, you do not state."
The fact that his gospel was dedicated to Theophilus doesn't mean Theophilus was the only intended reader. You clearly don't understand the nature of literary dedications in the Greco-Roman world.
"They didn't send the reader to church to be taught these things. Rather, they taught the reader these things via their Gospels"
ReplyDeleteLet me simply the issue this way: "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus". You have need to understand that the way we come to accept and believe the gospel is through the Church. The way we come to know what the gospel is is through the Church; the way we come to know who Jesus is is through the Church, etc. Whoever is saved is saved by Jesus through his Church. The gospel writers were not apart from the Church but were in the Church. This is why the bible (NT esp.) is a Church document; written through the Church and for the Church; get it now? Hopefully you will stop putting a wedge between the 1st century gospel writers and the Church.
Your assertions brazenly contradict the purpose statements of Luke and John in their respective Gospels. If you were living in NT times, you'd be excommunicated by the NT church.
DeleteNot to mention there's a fair bit of controversy within the Roman Catholic sect over "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus." In fact, the debate over the dogma has proven quite divisive such as with traditionalists using it to say the pope isn't a true Catholic and some Vatican II Catholics saying the same about traditionalists, etc. All this in turn impinges upon the nature and scope of the gospel, too.
Delete