L
Lampo
Guest
Very interesting. Thanks.
Would this still have been the case in the year 107AD?
- Status
A
Augsburg1530
Guest
Yes, for several reasons. First, because even though there was no “master list” of canonical books that the church had decided upon, does not mean that the church did not have access to the teachings of the apostles in both written and unwritten form. The writings of the apostles had been circulating for decades by this point in history.
Second, regardless of the form it took at that time, it was still the teachings of the apostles that were the authoritative, infallible norm for doctrine, which is simply what sola Scriptura states. Where we differ on this, is that Catholics believe that the unwritten traditions differ from what is written down in Scripture. That is, that there are teachings of the apostles which exist solely in unwritten tradition.
M
m_luther
Guest
I was raised catholic and joined a lutheran church a few years ago. The liturgy at a traditional service is very similar. I feel at home in church now and not judged.
Hi Lampo,
A couple of points:
- If the Church knew in 382, then why do the canons of the various Eastern Orthodox Churches vary? One would think that the entire pre-schism Church would have the same canon.
- It seems to me that the reason Trent addressed the issue wasn’t because the challenge was greater, but that the challenge was specifically from the reformers. For example, Cardinal Cajetan’s opinion regarding the deuterocanon sounds at least as definite that they were not canon as Luther’s.
L
Lampo
Guest
Such as the Bible’s table of contents.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
Only the Latinate church (at best) came to this conclusion on the biblical canon. These weren’t catholic councils, only local synods.
It’s not really a question of “if” because there IS disagreement between the ancient churches on the biblical canon. How do you account for it?
Yes, I at least attempt to chose my words carefully because some people confuse the Roman/Latinate church with the ancient universal (catholic) church.
Exactly. Each church can and has created differing biblical canons on their own. That’s always been the tradition. That’s why I was saying that you can’t reach a conclusion about an infallible canon–it’s a category that doesn’t fit the context.
E
Esdra
Guest
Hi
in this post we have been talking about how to change denominations in Austria (and came to the conclusion that it is much more complicated than in the US.)
As you (also) changed from Catholicism to Lutheranism: Could you briefly tell me what you have to do to change denominations in the US?
L
Lampo
Guest
Could those churches have gotten the canon wrong?
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
I think by saying so, one would open up a lot of other theological problems–but of course you could try to argue it. You’d have to explain how the canon was divinely revealed (in the fourth century, and via special revelation, no less) to only one minority segment of the church while simultaneously leaving everyone else in the church in error.
M
Mikeoffaith
Guest
M
m_luther
Guest
L
Lampo
Guest
For non-Catholics.
There is something fundamentally wrong in your statement above. It was revealed to the Catholic Church as a whole. Some people within the Church may have disagreed, but that’s not the same thing as the Church being confused. Those within the Church that disagreed and never yielded to the authority of the Church were indeed in error. The Holy Spirit promised to guide the *Church *into all truth, not individual members.
L
Lampo
Guest
Was wondering if Lutherans believe that their service is a re-presentation of Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary. When Martin Luther was a Catholic priest, did he believe everything the Church taught about the Mass and that it is a re-presentation of the sacrifice on Calvary?
D
dcointin
Guest
Sola Scriptura states that only Holy Scripture is the authoritative, infallible norm for doctrine, hence the name “Scripture Alone”. Tradition was viewed lacking divine inspiration and unreliable, and therefore placed in a suberviant role to Holy Scripture. While Martin Luther was more positive toward tradition than other reformers, and believed it should be maintained so long as it did not contradict the gospel, he still made a distinct separation between them.
I’m not sure where you heard that Catholics believe unwritten tradition differs from Holy Scripture. Catholics would say that it is in full harmony with Holy Scripture, though it made provide additional information that is not found in it. I would argue that it is the understanding of the fathers that there are things found in Holy Tradition that are not in Holy Scripture, as in the following selection from St. Basil the Great in his work “On the Holy Spirit”:
“Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay;—no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more.”
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.vii.xxviii.html
Perhaps the following answers your question, though “re-presentation” isn’t part of Lutheran “lingo”.
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html
I would think he probably did.
Jon
L
Lampo
Guest
Thanks. I’ve been wondering that recently.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
If the biblical canon was divinely revealed to the church as a whole (and I’d like to see any evidence you might have supporting your statement) then the vast, vast majority of the church refused to go along with this divine revelation, leaving ALL the other churches besides the Roman church (Greek Orthodox, Various Churches of the East) in schism already in the 4th century–an event which would far eclipse the so-called “Great Schism” of the 11th Century. If your statement is correct (and of course I strongly disagree with it) we’re not talking about a few lone dissenters here–we’re probably talking about a minimum of 75% of Christianity, a group that would include bishops and patriarchs. If the 75% of the church refused to abide by divine revelation, it seems to me that someone (e.g., the Bishop of Rome) probably would/should have said something about it at some point.
To the stark contrary, I do not note that these differing canons was ever a theological issue between the various churches–but if you have any evidence at all to the contrary I’d love to see it. Lacking that, I think you have to conclude that the true Tradition is that each church is free to develop their own biblical canon—and that the biblical canon was never infallibly defined.
E
Esdra
Guest
So you are LCMS then, I suppose?
Oh, I also studied the Reformation with great interst!
But actually, I got then more interested in the Swiss Reformation and Calvinism. (I am a big fan of the Reformed Evangelical Church and Presbyterian Church; 'though I attend a Baptist Church at the moment.)
L
Lampo
Guest
I’m re-reading “Where We Got the Bible”, by Rev. Graham, to freshen up on my understanding. It’s not that long of a read if you’d like to do the same. Here is the link.
Here is a snippet:
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
You’ll note in the first quote you’ve presented that the author is only talking about the New Testament, where there has historically been near universal consensus. This has never been the case for the Old Testament. But then by the time we get to the second quote, the author makes you think that there has been some universal acceptance of the entire biblical canon until the Reformation–which is not true and, imo, pretty deceptive.
The canon of all the Orthodox Churches has always differed in one respect or another from that of the Western Church. I will (again, I think) refer you the handy list found at the end of this article. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon. Or if you like, you can simply scan the table of contents of an Orthodox Study Bible at Amazon.com. Obviously, the historical majority of Christianity constitutes a bit more than “a voice in the wilderness.” Either the rest of Christianity knew about these “councils” and simply ignored the decrees of the Pope (not exactly supportive of the idea that the Pope ruled over the entire early church) or they didn’t even know about them because they didn’t participate in the deliberations–and the Pope didn’t really care about the difference in canons.
The author himself states in the beginning that “there is, therefore, no pretence [sic]…of profound scholarship…” This is certainly the case–as I didn’t note one reference to a primary source, although I did scan through the text pretty quickly.
- Status