Answer this question

[josephback]

If Luther appealed to “scripture and plain reason” over against the authority of “popes and councils,” but it was in fact early Church councils which defined the Scripture; how can I know that the scripture I use to argue against Catholic Church “traditions” are in fact the authoritative, true, and complete scriptures?

 

[SimpleRosarian]

From a post by Dave Armstrong, wherein Paul Althaus is quote as writing that:

[Luther] thereby established the principle that the early church’s formation and limitation of the canon is not exempt from re-examination . . . the canon is only a relative unity, just as it is only relatively closed. Therewith Luther has in principle abandoned every formal approach to the authority of the Bible. It is certainly understandable that Luther’s prefaces were no longer printed in German Bibles. One may characterize his attitude in this way: The canon itself was, as far as Luther was concerned, a piece of ecclesiastical tradition and therefore subject to criticism on the basis of God’s word.

 

[tee_eff_em]

From a post by Dave Armstrong, wherein Paul Althaus is quote as writing that:

Forgive me, I don’t usually foray into these threads.

Was that meant to answer the OP’s question, or to concur with and reframe it?



tee

 

[Church_Militant]

The church has always held to the authority of the scriptures but the church also knows that correct interpretation of them is her own Holy Spirit guided mandate.

Sola Scriptura never worked and never will. Here are some places where it has been discussed before.
It’s NOT in the Bible, okay?
It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? (Part II)
“If anyone teaches/preaches something that is not in scripture”
since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need…

 

[JonNC]

If Luther appealed to “scripture and plain reason” over against the authority of “popes and councils,” but it was in fact early Church councils which defined the Scripture; how can I know that the scripture I use to argue against Catholic Church “traditions” are in fact the authoritative, true, and complete scriptures?

That the Church, under its teaching authority found in scripture, determines canon (rules) and doctrine should not be at issue, as it is not a contradiction of sola scriptura. Different canons of scripture have always existed, from Eusebius to Athanasius, from John of Damascus to communions and patriarchs long before the Reformation era.

So, the answer seems to be that each communion or patriarchate determines the canon of scripture and makes use of scripture in a way they believe fits proper hermeneutics.

 

[psalm90]

That the Church, under its teaching authority found in scripture, determines canon (rules) and doctrine should not be at issue, as it is not a contradiction of sola scriptura. Different canons of scripture have always existed, from Eusebius to Athanasius, from John of Damascus to communions and patriarchs long before the Reformation era.

So, the answer** seems** to be that each communion or patriarchate determines the canon of scripture and makes use of scripture in a way they believe fits proper hermeneutics.

…a good demonstration of relativism, of which scripture itself does not approve. Friend, where does it say that everybody decides for themselves what is right and wrong?

“…seems…” ? Jesus said we would** know** the truth, not just what** seems** to be the truth.

 

[JonNC]

…a good demonstration of relativism, of which scripture itself does not approve. Friend, where does it say that everybody decides for themselves what is right and wrong?

“…seems…” ? Jesus said we would** know** the truth, not just what** seems** to be the truth.

If you want to accuse these and other Church fathers of being relativists (which I doubt), I won’t join you, but I don’t believe its relativism unless you say it is okay for the Church to be this way. I didn’t say it was proper or right, just that it has always been the case.

 

[adf417]

That the Church, under its teaching authority found in scripture, determines canon (rules) and doctrine should not be at issue, as it is not a contradiction of sola scriptura. Different canons of scripture have always existed, from Eusebius to Athanasius, from John of Damascus to communions and patriarchs long before the Reformation era.

Agreed.

So, the answer seems to be that each communion or patriarchate determines the canon of scripture and makes use of scripture in a way they believe fits proper hermeneutics.

Agreed if “communion” equals “in communion with one of the Patriarchates”

So now it further seems that any canon determined not in communion with the patriarchates is in question.

Peace!!!

 

[josephback]

That the Church, under its teaching authority found in scripture, determines canon (rules) and doctrine should not be at issue, as it is not a contradiction of sola scriptura. Different canons of scripture have always existed, from Eusebius to Athanasius, from John of Damascus to communions and patriarchs long before the Reformation era.

So, the answer seems to be that each communion or patriarchate determines the canon of scripture and makes use of scripture in a way they believe fits proper hermeneutics.

If the Church determines doctrine why did Luther not recant at the Diet of Worms when commanded? What is “the Church” in this sense such that doctrine is either seen as relative to the confession or hermeneutic used so that councils can be disobeyed in their pronouncements? What trumps what in this instance? If I disagree with my pastor on scripture who and what decides between us?

 

[JonNC]

If the Church determines doctrine why did Luther not recant at the Diet of Worms when commanded? What is “the Church” in this sense such that doctrine is either seen as relative to the confession or hermeneutic used so that councils can be disobeyed in their pronouncements? What trumps what in this instance? If I disagree with my pastor on scripture who and what decides between us?

Without wandering off topic too far, the movement aware from Church teaching has its roots long before Luther, or Zwingli, or even Huss.
I think Adf makes a far more significant point, regarding the patriarchates.

 

[commenter]

Without wandering off topic too far, the movement aware from Church teaching has its roots long before Luther, or Zwingli, or even Huss.
I think Adf makes a far more significant point, regarding the patriarchates.

But having a canon in union with the patriarchates puts man made limits on us. Sola Scriptura would ask “where did those patriarchates come from? Not really in the Bible.”

Accepting the NT canon implies some kind of authority prior to the (multiple) patriarchs; a template that the patriarchates almost unanimously follow. I think this implies there must have been a single line of human authority, which is implied by the single template of the NT canon (very little variation among the recognized patriarchates. That’s why they were recognized). Yes, I know there was also Sacred Tradition, as a back up, but it really requires a single canonizing authority, to officially designate this one percent of traditions constitutes Sacred Tradition. And the other 99% of traditions are not.

There were, in time, multiple patriarchates recognized, which mostly followed the original 2 templates or canons (tradition and scripture). That differentiates these few patriarchates (mostly in agreement with the template) from other, unrecognized patriarchates. Recognition requires a single recognizer, not popular consensus. That is why I think the Magisterium predates the patriarchates.

 

[rcwitness]

If the Church determines doctrine why did Luther not recant at the Diet of Worms when commanded? What is “the Church” in this sense such that doctrine is either seen as relative to the confession or hermeneutic used so that councils can be disobeyed in their pronouncements? What trumps what in this instance? If I disagree with my pastor on scripture who and what decides between us?

Good questions. If we practice what Jesus says in Matthew 18, we can appeal all the way to our Bishop, and if that’s not enough, there is only Rome, for those who believe in a Universal Jurisdiction.

But if you don’t believe in Universal Jurisdiction, it makes Jesus’ instruction to “take it to the Church” pretty weak, when different Churches disagree on most everything under the sun.

 

[JonNC]

Good questions. If we practice what Jesus says in Matthew 18, we can appeal all the way to our Bishop, and if that’s not enough, there is only Rome, for those who believe in a Universal Jurisdiction.

But if you don’t believe in Universal Jurisdiction, it makes Jesus’ instruction to “take it to the Church” pretty weak, when different Churches disagree on most everything under the sun.

Hi Michael ,
One could reasonably argue that it is the claim of universal jurisdiction that has weakened the “take it to the Church” instruction because that claim is a significant reason for the division of the Church.

 

[JonNC]

=

commenter;14593259]But having a canon in union with the patriarchates puts man made limits on us. Sola Scriptura would ask “where did those patriarchates come from? Not really in the Bible.”

Why would you say that? I think it perfectly reasonable to look at the example in acts, and Christ’s bestowing the power of the keys first to Peter, then to the rest, to be able to see where they come from.

Accepting the NT canon implies some kind of authority prior to the (multiple) patriarchs; a template that the patriarchates almost unanimously follow. I think this implies there must have been a single line of human authority, which is implied by the single template of the NT canon (very little variation among the recognized patriarchates. That’s why they were recognized). Yes, I know there was also Sacred Tradition, as a back up, but it really requires a single canonizing authority, to officially designate this one percent of traditions constitutes Sacred Tradition. And the other 99% of traditions are not.

There’s a variation of up to, what , 81 books. That seems pretty significant. The local synods at Rome, Carthage, and Hippo were never considered ecumenical, or binding on the whole Church, AFAIK.

There were, in time, multiple patriarchates recognized, which mostly followed the original 2 templates or canons (tradition and scripture). That differentiates these few patriarchates (mostly in agreement with the template) from other, unrecognized patriarchates. Recognition requires a single recognizer, not popular consensus. That is why I think the Magisterium predates the patriarchates.

A single recognized was not the way of the early Church.

 

[peter26]

One can of course make the argument that the Canon of Scripture is just that which has been accepted by all men in all times and in all places. It is the Canon because of universal use over a sustained period and is really a matter of academic consensus.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi Michael ,
One could reasonably argue that it is the claim of universal jurisdiction that has weakened the “take it to the Church” instruction because that claim is a significant reason for the division of the Church.

I guess I don’t see the sound reason behind that claim. The Church, in the time of the Apostles, had universal jurisdiction. The Counsel of Jerusalem made binding decrees. We were never told that the Church can no longer make universal decrees. It is more reasonable to understand that the Bishop who succeeds Peter, and the college of Bishops who succeed the Apostles, are able to decree matters of faith and morals.

I will agree with anyone who professes Scripture to be the highest rule of faith for the Magisterium to uphold, when Confirming the faithful in faith and morals. Yet, Scripture sometimes lacks Formal Sufficiency (or explicit instructions) regarding all practice and beliefs. Examples might be Infant Baptism, Intercession of the Saints, Succession of Peter, etc.

 

[adf417]

Hi Michael ,
One could reasonably argue that it is the claim of universal jurisdiction that has weakened the “take it to the Church” instruction because that claim is a significant reason for the division of the Church.

I agree wholeheartedly with this arguement Jon, but I don’t think it is the recommendation of any form of “church” even you can dream up.

Happy Easter - and of course, Peace!!!

 

[commenter]

=

There’s a variation of up to, what , 81 books. That seems pretty significant. The local synods at Rome, Carthage, and Hippo were never considered ecumenical, or binding on the whole Church, AFAIK.

A single recognized was not the way of the early Church.

The variation among canons within the ******recognized
****** patriarchates is small, if you consider the recognized patriarchates rely heavily on books for doctrine that are recognized as canonical by the other patriarchates, so for 99% of purpose, they use the same canon. (I would argue that is ****why ****these particular patriarchates were recognized). And others not.

The slight variation in scriptures drawn on for doctrine is insignificant, compared to the huge variation between the recognized patriarchates, and for instance, the gnostics and others, who ****drew **********doctrine ******from a wildly different pool of scriptures. So the other patriarchates did not get recognized, because their doctrinal pool led them too far from the single template. (Recognized or unrecognized by whom?)

I agree with you that those synods were not ****in **********themselves ******binding on the whole Church. If they had, and still have, authority, it is only because somebody singular utilized them (and not other synods). It would seem that somebody singular had recognition by a fair number of Christians, with a single doctrinal template and they either persuaded, silenced, or killed off the other Christians, so later on you had only one circle of patriarchates standing. The others, maybe the majority of Christians, either buried their scriptures in the ground, left Christianity, or accepted the one template maker.

If you want to attack the single ancient template maker as ruthless or stifling to the other Christianities, I can’t refute you. But If you argue the absence of a single, victorious authority, that does not seem consistent with the outcome.

 

[benhur]

If Luther appealed to “scripture and plain reason” over against the authority of “popes and councils,” but it was in fact early Church councils which defined the Scripture; how can I know that the scripture I use to argue against Catholic Church “traditions” are in fact the authoritative, true, and complete scriptures?

Hij,

Wondering if it is a strawman argument.

Never the less, could you please tell me what king or council decreed the Jewish bible that Jesus used ?

One could use your same argument and say Jesus was undermining the "establishment’’, the leaders of Judaism, with their own Writ, yet no one says that was counter intuitive. And they surely put Him to death for it.

And isn’t it true , that NT writ was authoritative from the get go, and the first bibles were written without any papal or council (name removed by moderator)ut (Eusebius and Constantine’s bibles ) ? Another words for the most part church oversight (dare i say the H.S.'s guidance) and tradition pretty much had all the books lined up before any council…

Blessings

 

[adf417]

And isn’t it true , that NT writ was authoritative from the get go, and the first bibles were written without any papal or council (name removed by moderator)ut (Eusebius and Constantine’s bibles ) ? Another words for the most part church oversight (dare i say the H.S.'s guidance) and tradition pretty much had all the books lined up before any council.

Hi Ben, if this is true how do you account for the growing number of NT books bieing usen in the liturgy the first few centuries? Sure the HS spoke His word from the get go and it is, and has always been complete and absolute, but surley you can see through history the church as a whole not all on the same page until the 4th century as what was and what was not inspired from the God in terms of the NT.

Peace!!!