The Age of the World–Part I

by Jimmy Akin on August 20, 2009

in Science

A subject that comes up from time to time is how old the world is–either the earth or the cosmos as a whole.

The responses to this question are typically divided into the well-known "old" and "young" camps, the former holding that the earth and the cosmos are billions of years old and the second holding that they are a few thousand or perhaps tens of thousands of years old. So, depending on just how many thousands or billions of years you posit, there are four to six orders of magnitude separating the two schools of thought.

In a short series of posts, I'd like to look at some magisterial texts that have a bearing on this question and offer a few thoughts on them.

The first thought, before I even get to the magisterial texts, is that both positions are compatible with the Catholic faith. You can be a good Catholic and hold that the universe is thousands or millions or billions or trillions or quadrillions or other numbers of years old. The Church does not teach any particular age or age-range for the earth or the cosmos. You can follow the evidence where you think it leads.

This is because the Magisterium has determined that the question of the ages of the earth and the cosmos are principally scientific questions that are not (or at least that do not appear to be) settled by the sources of faith.

This may not always have been so. I would not be at all surprised if there are past papal, curial, or conciliar texts that do indicate an age-range for the earth or the cosmos as part of ordinary magisterial teaching, perhaps in the thousands or tens of thousands of years range. 

In fact, if a reader knows of such passages, I'd love to see them.

Such a prior position, at least of itself, would not pose a problem for the Church's current determination since ordinary magisterial teaching is nondefinitive and thus can be revised, as with the case of the Church removing the theological speculation of limbo from its ordinary teaching while still allowing the theory of limbo to be held (a rather striking parallel for what might be the case on the age of the world question).

However that may be, recent magisterial statements have made it clear that the age of the world is an open question and we are not limited to the thousands or tens of thousands of years age-range.

We will look at some of these texts in this series.

A second thing I'd like to point out before going to the first text is that the Magisterium's current judgment that this is primarily a scientific question puts the Magisterium in an interesting position in terms of how to articulate the position.

Of course, they could always say, "This is a scientific question; the sources of faith don't determine it," and leave it at that, but they usually aren't that concise in how they answer such questions. They want to say a little more about it, and so what they often do is express openness to the modern scientific view but without making a formal endorsement of this view as correct (i.e., "The universe is billions of years old, as modern science tells us").

It's good that they don't take that extra step because science can get things wrong and, after getting their fingers burned with Ptolemaic astronomy, they don't want to lock believers into having to accept a particular scientific account that might one day be proven wrong.

So that's all to the good.

Here is how the Catechism handles the question:

283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."

Here the Catechism takes an appreciative stance toward recent scientific studies on the question but without mentioning any particular numbers. It doesn't say anything about billions of years.

Yet surely that is what it has in mind. It could not be credibly claimed that the "many scientific studies" it refers to are ones being done at the Institution for Creation Research in El Cajon, California–or by similar young earth/young universe groups.

Surely it has in mind mainstream scientific studies which point to an old earth, and older universe, and some kind of evolutionary process working through the development of life forms and the appearance of man.

But note: None of those things are points of faith.

The results of particular scientific studies or the claims of particular scientific theories (e.g., evolution) are scientific matters, not things taught in the sources of faith.

As a result, these studies and claims cannot be binding on believers are matters of faith. And so one can be a good Catholic (good in his faith) even if he rejects all of them. If you accept the modern scientific account then you might ju
dge such a person a bad scientist (or at least badly informed on scientific matters) but not a bad Catholic.

This means that what we have in the first sentence of paragraph 283 of the Catechism is not per se a doctrine of the Church. Instead, it is a pastoral expression that seeks to appreciate and respect the findings of modern science without imposing them on the faithful as matters of faith.

That's not unusual. There are quite a number of places in the Catechism that are best classified as pastoral expressions rather than per se doctrinal or dogmatic ones. 

There are also, of course, loads of doctrinal and dogmatic ones. (This is, after all, a catechism!)

It is important, when dealing with questions like this, to have an awareness of the fact that the Catechism uses different modes of expression. What particular mode is being used in a particular passage must be determined by the text itself as well as an awareness of the dynamics of the question theologically, as the above illustrates.

Next . . . another text.
Comments have been disabled for this post.
Sort: Newest | Oldest

No, I was thinking about the alternate universe, the Chickenverse. In that universe, everything I say is right : )
I never said it was Bogart. I said he had a Bogart accent. In reality, it may have been the accidental intersection of the two movies, which someone carelessly spliced together in the cinema of my mind. Although I barely remember Buck Privates and i never saw the Caine Mutiny all the way through. So, who is the splicer?
Hey, i'm dancing around the truth as fast as I can (and that isn't easy for a chicken).
The Chicken

Correct, SDG. Maybe the Chicken was thinking of "Buck Privates", which did have dice.

"They were all against me, don't you see, from the start, I tell ya..."
Sounds like airtight, geometric logic. It was probably Judas that made a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox and gave it to Peter...

I believe a chicken's face is called its crop. In any event, chickens can't smile.
The Chicken

OK, Chicken, I guess I believe you, you have an honest face. ;-)

Dear Dr. Eric,
[Holding dice and wearing a Naval suit, Bogart accent]. Eh, I am not nor have I ever been Jimmy Akin. I can't dance. Even in squares.
They were all against me, don't you see, from the start, I tell ya...
The Chicken

Thank you Dr. Eric.
It is great to be finally home and at peace.

So Oneil,
You are telling us that the EFCA does not have all of its "required to be believed" doctrines listed in any kind of periodical? No creedal statement? Nothing?
That is way to nebulous for me, as someone who requires dogma I would assume that would be important to you too. We recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday and must make our statement of Faith in association with the Apostles Creed to become Catholic.
A six hour class and an interview that would be easy. Our incoming class for RCIA has to go through over 24 hours of interactive instructions following up their confirmation and reception into Christ’s Church that is hard.
Matt. 7 comes to mind,” [13] "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
[14] For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”

Lucien,
:-D
By the way, welcome home, brother. :-)

I'm sorry but I don't see the logical steps (perhaps bouncing in and out between patients has reduced my skills or perhaps there are no logical steps) in insisting that every thing required for salvation is in the Bible (I capitalize it) and yet posting a made up prayer not even indirectly taken from the Holy Scriptures.

Dr. Eric,
Prayer is not a formula. The heathen pray by repetition and formula. Prayer consists of 4 major aspects. - see http://www.prayerguide.org.uk/actsmodel.htm. An excerpt is listed below.
"Adoration is to adore God, to worship him and to fulfil the commandment to love him with all of our heart, mind and soul. As we spend time in adoration, we praise God for who He is - our Creator, our Sustainer and our Redeemer. (more about praise and adoration.)
Confession allows us to clear away the things in the relationship between you and God which are displeasing to Him. All of us have sinned. St John writes in his epistle "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." (I Jn 1:8,9) (more about confession.)
Thanksgiving. From childhood we are brought up to say "Thank You" when someone does something for us, or gives us a gift. Each moment God is blessing us, every minute we can recall the wonderful things that God has done for us, and the gifts that we have been given. And so, we need to be constantly thanking God for his blessings. In writing to Timothy, Paul makes it clear that we also need to be giving thanks for everyday, worldly things " I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness." 1 Tim 2:1. (more about thanksgiving.)
Supplication or Intercession. Finally we come to ask God for our needs and the needs of others. There are many demands on our prayer time - many topics and issues that we could pray for, so we need to choose, and to be specific. (more about topics to pray for) "

Lucien,
We don't post all our doctrines on the website. I don't know why. Nevertheless, the ministerial staff has a much larger set of guidelines they must follow. Probably the website is just giving the basics. In our church everyone is required to take a 6 hour membership class, followed by an interview.

Dr. Eric,
You read the whole thread? You need our prayers more than Oneil does.

Wow! Finally through all of that.
First, I don't think that Oneil is Jimmy, I think the Masked Chicken is. ;-)
Second, I went to the website and it told me to pray a prayer. Fine, but the assumption is that everything that is needed to be known has to be 100% biblical. Yet the prayer doesn't come from the Bible. It's just something some dude made up. If I'm going to pray and hope to be saved, shouldn't I pray the Lord's Prayer? It's biblical. How about the Jesus Prayer that the Eastern Catholics and Orthodox use "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner." That comes from two different Bible verses. Or even the Hail Mary, 50% comes explicitly from the verses in St. Lukes Gospel Chaper One, and the rest is implied from the Apocalypse. Even the Sub Tuum Praesidium is better written that that smarmy prayer.

Oneil,
Please show me a website or document that the EFCA published as it's doctrines that must be believed by all of the members.
Thanks.

Confidential to my secret pen pal: At the moment I cannot retrieve the email address you once sent me. If you don't currently have my email address, send me yours via the contact form and I'll reply with my address and we can correspond directly. Thanks.

Lucien,
You are correct that EFCA does not have a dogmatic statement regarding Methuselah specifically. However indirectly it does. This all goes under the subheading of hermeneutics. So if I were to go into a meeting and say I don't believe Methuselah was 969 year old, I would probably be removed from a leadership position. As a Catholic, nobody would care.

Chicken,
No problem. You can pull out our sword, chicken feet, or flap your wings. Either way flexing your intellectual biceps keeps me humble.

Sorry about that last post. My pride got the better of me.
The Chicken

Oh, and I am an historian (as well as a scientist) and I have done variant analysis, lexical analysis, and historical analysis at the doctoral level, so I know how to do the research probably at least as well as you do. Although my area in history is not Biblical studies, the methods of textual analysis are, essentially, the same.
The Chicken

Dear Oneil,
You wrote:
I am sure the good doctor also believed that Methuselah was 969 years old when he died.
While it is good to know that you believe this, have you actually spoken to St. Luke? Did he appoint you as his spokesman? Do know for a fact that he didn't actually ask someone who may have asked Jesus, who would certainly know?
All you know for certain is that Luke included him in his genealogy in Luke 3:37:
[37] the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Maha'lale-el, the son of Ca-i'nan, .
That is the fact. Luke does not state an age. You have no data beyond his listing the name. He only connects the names in order. There are no dates attached to them. This could be a non-metric topology. Everything on your part regarding what Luke believed about the age of Methuselah is conjecture. Conjecture is not scholarship. That he believe that Methuseluah was the son of Enoch is certain from your data. Nothing else. You cannot read into the data to support your claims. That is dishonest.
The Chicken

Oneil,
This would exclude you from every church with the exception of Fundamentalist churches, which you have belittled. I also doubt that most would make a decree like that but you never know.
Show me the website or decree that the EFC (your Church) has requiring everyone to accept the literal age of Methuselah as 969 year old. Follow up on this one, don't change the subject. You should be able to justify this one - I actually think you can!
I, for one, have already pointed out that I believe Methuselah's age to be 969. Luckily my Church hasn't made a Dogma out of it. I am free to believe it and do. Even if those nasty Jesuits made fun of me I wouldn't budge on it and I certainly wouldn't run for the hills. That is very un-Viking like!

Kiran,
My outline for becoming a Protestant is a recommendation, not a doctrinal statement.
George,
I guess it doesn't take much to cause your brain to hurt.
Luke 3 gives a Genealogy of Adam to Jesus. Methuselah is mentioned. I am sure the good doctor also believed that Methuselah was 969 years old when he died. So if the Catholics are nebulous about Methuselah's age, they are undermining Luke 3, which then undermines the integrity and intelligence of Luke and thus one of the gospels becomes questionable. That is why I make a big deal about Methuselah. I would never consider going to a church that did not make a dogmatic statement that Methuselah was 969 years old.

Umm... As a case for converting to Protestantism, Oniel, your five-point program is about as convincing as a dervish's dance. Actually, a little less, because one can actually look at a dancing dervish, while one cannot see a Catholic "becoming" a Protestant because he is "convinced" by God. Your assertion sounds just like any simple "Believe me because I am great" kind of assertion. It ain't got substance.
The Bible on its own cannot even be transmitted, let alone held on to as a document of faith, or understood.

"Also the first 15 Bishops of Rome, except 2 all had Greek names. That makes a case for the church at Rome being subordinate to the East."

Aaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!
Please, please, please stop saying random stupid things!!!! Stupid random things. Randomly stupid and stupidly random.
Oneil, did you even think about this one before you posted it? Did you actually read those words somewhere and think, "Hm, popes had Greek names, so really, it does make sense that Rome should be subject to the East"? Or did you just run across it at some website, think it sounded good, and fling it at the wall along with the rest of the mud?
Listen to me. Have you ever heard of Hellenism? From the time of Alexander the Great on, Greek was everybody's second language. Much like English today.
Lots of people in Rome had Greek names. E.g., Phoebe (Rom 16:1), Timothy, Eunice, Andronicus, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Persis, Philogus, Nereus (all Acts 16), etc. I could go on and on. There was no theological or ecclesiological dimension whatsoever to Romans having Greek names. The linguistic origin of the names of popes had nothing to do with claims of primacy or who should be subject to whom.
Oneil, please, please listen: God is truth. The devil is the father of lies. These are not just words. The truth really matters. Just because something (a) sounds superficially good and (b) seems like a stick you can use to beat the Church, it doesn't make it true or right.
I have to ask, have you ever even once ran across an "argument" against the "Church of Rome" that you actually questioned? Of all the random dreck that you've posted here, have you even once looked twice at your arguments and wondered, "Even though this makes the Church look bad, does that mean it is actually true?" Have there been any arguments you ran across that you actually didn't post because you actually thought that even though they might seem to make the Church look bad, you weren't sure if they were true?
Given the half-baked and threadbare arguments you actually have posted, I'm assuming it would have to be a pretty appallingly specious and dishonest argument for you to actually pass up on posting it. But I would feel reassured if I knew there were even one.
I cannot monitor everything you say here while I work on my series on Peter. If you continue to litter this combox with irresponsible nonsense, I will have no choice but to disinvite you from further blog participation and/or shut down the combox.
This may be a new thought for you, but you need to be self-critical. You need to think before you post. You can't just run every single thing up the flagpole and see who salutes. You have to ask yourself: Does this really make sense? Is it fair? Does it contribute to the conversation?
I don't want to take disciplinary action, but if we can't do better than this I will have no choice.

@Oneil
"The reason I am a Christian is the God spoke to me. I had a divine revelation from God. My testimony is that at the Post Office God told me the mailbox number of 4 people walking through the door. God said, I will prove that I am divine."
OK. So, you had an experience.
It seems strange that you would have me believe you after you went on about how people are generally untrustworthy and stupid. But, I'll assume you're not crazy.
Why do you think that God spoke to you in that way?
"The conqueror writes history and usually twists history to support their case."
More cynicism.
"M.L Martin,
The problem is that you assume that the church is like a tree with branches. The church is a grape vine with branches."
He wasn't talking about the church. He was talking about you and your hermeneutic of suspicion.
I'd take the question a step farther. If we can't trust that the Church Fathers knew what they were talking about, then how can we trust that anyone from that period knew what they were doing, and, therefore, how do we know whether anything that was passed down from them is sound?
"Again you have been drinking the coolaid of the Vatican. The Catholic approach is to bury you in the nuance of Sacraments and Catholic Catechism, thus making you feel unsure that you can understand the Bible yourself. Thus they have created a cult of mind control."
This made me laugh, so thank you.
"I don't know how much time you spent with Jesuits and Priests."
Hee. Oh, those Jesuits!
So by undermining the age of Methuselah, Catholics inhibit people from properly hearing and understanding the Word of God.
LOL! Now we're back to Methuselah? This sentence doesn't make any sense to me.
"I was not a Cafeteria Catholic until the Jesuits helped make lose all faith in the RCC."
Did you think to talk to some non-Jesuits?
"Then I will say you are too ignorant of scripture to be in a position to properly judge me."
So, when someone says something you don't like, you just tell them that they're ignorant? Handy!
"You feel defenseless, so you get angry."
Oh, great. More psychobabble.
"They have built a house of cards that can not withstand the Viking frontal assault."
Ugh. So many cliches. My brain. It hurts.
"Catholics obfuscate the simple gospel with magical rituals that leave indelible marks. Similar magic was practiced by countless pagan cultures and religions."
You're such a weirdo. I mean, really?

Oneil,
The Kingdom is both of this world, it is present in the Catholic Church. As well it is a spiritual Kingdom, when Jesus comes again in glory.
The Catholic Church does not "obfuscate the simple gospel with magical rituals that leave indelible marks". The heretics typically take one aspect of the Gospel and hold it up as their new version of the Gospel. As opposed to the whole Gospel message which Jesus commanded His Church to preach (this included the Sacraments).
John 6:
[53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; [54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
As a Catholic I no longer have to obfuscate that simple gospel message from the Lord!

Paul says: 'testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance to God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.'-Acts 20:21
We are at an impass, since we both claim that faith in Christ Jesus comes from hearing the Word of God which is the Bible.
It does not come by the magic of sacraments. Repentance, i.e. godly repentance which achieves the Righteousness of being born-again is a one time event. This is also mentioned in Acts 2:36-38. Catholics obfuscate the simple gospel with magical rituals that leave indelible marks. Similar magic was practiced by countless pagan cultures and religions. The Kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom not a kingdom of this world. Catholics think the Incarnation is the defining event in Christendom, Protestants say that the Crucifixion/Resurrection are the defining moments of Christendom. The former was necessary to complete the later.

Oneil,
If Jesuits (specifically 20th or 21st Century American Jesuits), caused your heresy I am astonished.
Where do you find it in the Bible (I like the capital B too) that there would not be false teachers in the Kingdom of God, the Church?
This is a rather long story from the Bible but something you should read (at least 3 times, after attended Mass for 9 consecutive weeks and without the Viking helmet on):
Acts Chapter 20:17-32 (I have paraphrased it a bit)
"[17] And from Mile'tus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. [18] And when they came to him, he said to them: "You yourselves know how I lived among you all the time from the first day that I set foot in Asia, [19] serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials which befell me through the plots of the Jews; [20] how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, [21] testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance to God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ...
[26] Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, [27] for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. [28] Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son. [29] I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; [30] and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. [31] Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears.
[32] And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified."
Paul's instructions to the Elders were pretty clear I didn't read any instructions regarding anything remotely suggesting sola or solo Scriptura. The charge was to the Elders and Paul knew there would be internal and external attacks against them.
Verse 30 could be used in reference to many a Jesuit or Priest but that never suggests leaving the Church.
Oneil the Viking Heretic, don't you see that God might have wanted you to become a Jesuit! Usually when people fall away from Faith it is the very thing God wanted them to overcome. You could have been a good Jesuit using your mind to attack those who would do battle with Christ's Church from within. Now you stand outside trying to destroy what you no longer understand.
I do love you in Christ though and hope someday you will return to the fold.
I went to a Protestant School with a degree in Marketing. That is the reason I have been out of work for 7 months now (the Marketing degree not because the institute).

Lucien,
You make accusations that I twist scripture. Then I will say you are too ignorant of scripture to be in a position to properly judge me.
You feel defenseless, so you get angry. Don't blame me, blame the people that are catechizing you. They have built a house of cards that can not withstand the Viking frontal assault.
Justin Martyr mentions Simon the Sorcerer being in Rome, but never mentions Peter. Also the first 15 Bishops of Rome, except 2 all had Greek names. That makes a case for the church at Rome being subordinate to the East. The Theological centers in the first 300 years were Antioch, Carthage/Tunisia and Alexandria -not Rome.
So I am not skeptical of all history, only Catholic revisionism.

Lucien,
The title does not bother me. Also I do appreciate people correcting my grammar. Thanks for correctly spelling stalwart. But Bible( OT & NT) is spelled with a capital B.
I was not a Cafeteria Catholic until the Jesuits helped make lose all faith in the RCC.
Please remind me of your academic background.

Whoops kind of a double post there sorry!

Oneil,
Find me that five step process in the bible and we can discuss the matter.
Otherwise I know, as well as most here, you are twisting!
You DO like to dance: Twist around logic, twist ALL around the bible trying to make a coherent point (but failing most of the time) and twisting to your own destruction.
Unless of course you repent, so far the only destruction here has been to any possibility of a rational discussion.
Real faith comes from hearing the word of God, I agree and I heard it yesterday proclaimed at the Mass. But as a former stalwart Catholic you should remember that!

Oneil,
Find me that five step process in the bible and we can discuss the matter.
Otherwise I know, as well as most here, you are twisting!
You DO like to dance: Twist around logic, twist ALL around the bible trying to make a coherent point (but failing most of the time) and twisting to your own destruction.
Unless of course you repent, so far the only destruction here has been to any possibility of a rational discussion.
Real faith comes from hearing the word of God, I agree and I heard it yesterday proclaimed at the Mass. But as a former stalwart Catholic you should remember that!
I love the adjectives you use to describe yourself (when you do spell them correctly) they are so forceful.
From my perspective though I would label you as a former anemic cafeteria Catholic who has fallen headlong into heresy (usually a charge I can’t make with Protestants).
Being that you were a robust Roman Catholic who no longer thinks the Church is what Christ claimed she would be, I can use that term in discussions with you.
So from now on, if you don’t object, I will refer to you as Oneil the Viking Heretic – but only if you don’t mind! I might even start a blog with that title!

So how do does a Catholic become a Christian.
1. First Catholics need a crop failure, not a harvest, pertaining to their preconceived ideas.
2. Then they need to enter a mode of skeptism.
3. Then when they are sufficiently broken, they begin the journey upward.
4. This journey continues by attending a Protestant church for 9 weeks and reading three times the Book of John.
5. During the course of these events God will speak and convict your heart.

Lucien,
The Bible says faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Faith does not come from sacraments or baptism. The only way to have faith is to hear the Word of God. So by undermining the age of Methuselah, Catholics inhibit people from properly hearing and understanding the Word of God. Thus many Catholics typically have intellectual ascension or obedience to Magisterium rather than the Biblical required Faith that is necessary for salvation.
There are going to be a lot of Mormons, JW's and Catholics shocked at the Day of Judgment.

My comments on the primacy of Peter, now in progress.

Lucien,
My testimony is not different than countless other Protestants. I am not my own teaching authority. I have submitted to the EFC, who has submitted to an Evangelical council composed of other churches from other denominations. Study the Bible and see if I present novel doctrine.
So I followed the Biblical pattern of believing, repenting and being baptized. My faith rests solidly in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit who is my Comforter. I, like the members of my church, have the authority to bind and loose just like the disciples.
You say I need humilty, don't we all. However most people confuse humilty with weakness. Humilty is controlled strength submitted to the will of God. If you can't hear God's voice how do you know that your in His will? Man created traditions so he did not have to be accountable to hearing the God's Voice. And the only way to discern God's Voice is to correctly understand His written Word.

My testimony is that at the Post Office God told me the mailbox number of 4 people walking through the door.
Oneil, why do say it was God and not some evil demon in league with four people or some other explanation? Is this an example of how you're "preaching sola scriptura, sola fide"?

TimJ,
I don't know how much time you spent with Jesuits and Priests. My experience is that there were some Catholic clergy that thought the Bible was the Word of God and others who did not think so. So I would vacillate between believing and not believing. Primarily I would be in the not believing camp. Over my 10 year journey, people would give me books like Evidence that Demands a Verdict or More than a Carpenter both by Josh McDowell or some articles from Christian Archeology Digest(?)( don't remember the exact title, my Presbyterian( PCUSA)roomate had a subscription). So my journey went from blind belief, to major doubt, to false religions, to finally faith and a personal born again event.

Oneil,
You are suspicious of everything but your own reasoning capacity; which has only increased my own suspicions that you could do with a heavy dose of humility (as well as a dose of reason).
What you are describing as your theological outlook is not faith and thus has no power to save!
Unless, of course, you can detail clearly this process of yours (from the bible) you have nothing to stand on as a source of authority.
If everyone has to become a novice armchair dogmatic theologian to make it to heaven there will be less people there than the Jehovah Witnesses originally prophesied.
Which brings me to another point: What do the Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists and your very own 150 year old orthodox Protestant Viking Evangelical church have in common?
They were all started here in the United States of America in the 19th Century! By people, like you, claiming the Church got it wrong but they got it right and they can prove it from the bible.
So as you see the bible which is your only authority (outside of your reasoning) is not a source of unity and was never promised to be. The first Pope had to remind people that Paul’s letters were complicated and that the dangerous were twisting them to their own destruction.
With that said…Twist away Oneil, twist away!
Repent or you will away resent!

Let me get this staright, Oneil... you were agnostic as to the bible being the Word of God until you studied it and the historical evidence around it for years and independently decided - on your own authority - that it was the word of God?
In other words, you read it for quite a while without making up your mind, and then decided on the weight of internal and *external* evidence that it was The Word of God?
What was your opinion of its authorship before you came to believe in it as God's Word?
I assume you did not have any direct access to any of the historical or archeological evidence you speak of... why do you accept it, and yet reject historical and archeological evidence that works against your pet theories?
Lots of books are internally consistent. What made you believe that the prophecies of the bible were written when they seem to have been written, recorded accurately and passed down without corruption?... without already believing that the bible enjoyed divine protection?
So, you're clainimg that God spoke to you directly by picking out post office boxes? Wow.
Let me tell you... there are two things I have serious doubts about, and the more you talk, the more doubtful I become; the first is that you are any kind of theologian (except by some private definition of the term accepted by you and very few others), and the second is that you are a former Catholic.

"Most of the Apostles were blue collar fisherman. Only Paul and maybe Luke were intellectual heavy weights."

Aside: If you accept the traditional authorship of Matthew and John, then they were intellectual heavyweights too. Zebedee's family fishing business does not mean that his family was not educated; it is even possible that John came from a priestly family that did its occasional Temple duties and maintained the fishing business the rest of the year. Either way, the First and Fourth Gospels are both the work of formidable literary talents.

M.L Martin,
The problem is that you assume that the church is like a tree with branches. The church is a grape vine with branches.
Jesus is the vine and we are the branches. Branches can always be pruned back. After the harvest all the branches are cut except one. So as long as we return back to the vine we can regrow.
So, yes, I am suspicious of Church history when it is riddled with Fraud. Eusebius doctored church history for his purposes, the forged church fathers, church fathers contradicting other church fathers, the East-West split, etc. This is no different than the OT Jews. They went into captivity and were almost utterly destroyed. However they were restored and Ezra using the Bible had to reteach them their previous Levitical practices. So as long as I have the Bible, Christianity can always be re-derived. Furthermore when one studies the 3 different hermeneutical methods, one quickly discovers that only the historical-grammatical approach is logically consistent and is used today by Orthodox Jews, who are basically direct descendants of the scribes of the Old Testament( If it were not for the NT, I would be an Orthodox Jew). So in this fashion I have historical continuity. The methods of Catholicism are inventions of Philo and others.
Furthermore if you understand the Bible properly, you see that the spiritual church really began in the Garden of Eden. Compare Genesis 1-3 with Revelation 20-22.
Again you have been drinking the coolaid of the Vatican. The Catholic approach is to bury you in the nuance of Sacraments and Catholic Catechism, thus making you feel unsure that you can understand the Bible yourself. Thus they have created a cult of mind control. I always tell people to go to primary sources. The Bible is the primary source and was written to the common man. Most of the Apostles were blue collar fisherman. Only Paul and maybe Luke were intellectual heavy weights.

"Well by your own admission it is possible that Peter's supremacy could be revoked."

And so, once again, we see that you cannot read. Please contemplate further the meaning of the word "considered" in the full context of the quoted sentence.

"Maybe it was revoked when he denied Christ 3 times!"

Yes, that is a very reasonable thought indeed, and goes to why Jesus (a) made a point of appearing first to Peter among the Twelve (1 Cor 15, Luke 24:34, cf. Mark 16:7), and why in John's Gospel he elicits Peter's triple declaration of love and gives him the threefold commission to feed his sheep, thus canceling out Peter's triple denial and reinstating him in his office. (Look, it's all coming. I'm working on it as we speak. Just sit tight and wait.)

Oneil--the problem with your hermeneutic of radical suspicion of Church history is that it cuts off the branch on which you sit. If the Church Fathers and other authorities are so untrustworthy about those heretical sects, why are they trustworthy on the canon of Scripture? Or on the Trinity and the nature of the Incarnation?

I should have said 'ludicrous that it could be revocable.' The 'ir' prefix is incorrect.

SDG,
You said:
I don't see that I am obliged to maintain that Jesus' intention for Peter's role would necessarily have been equally understood by all the Twelve, or that it would necessarily have been considered irrevocable or incapable of question
Well by your own admission it is possible that Peter's supremacy could be revoked. Maybe it was revoked when he denied Christ 3 times! I find this thinking odd since the covenant God made with Abraham was irrevocable. A descendant on the Throne of David, i.e. Jesus was irrevocable. So if Peter is such a foundation it seems ludicrous that it could ever be irrevocable. What your saying is that Jesus could revoke the church away from Peter. I sure would not want to be a member of that church.

Previous post:

Next post: