Do we really want another 500 years of division between Catholics and Protestants?

[PRmerger]

A person, or institution can be right in certain matters, wrong in others.

Fair enough.

How do you know, then, that the Church got it right in keeping Hebrews in the canon and excluding the Shepherd of Hermas?

You base this on what?

You cannot use Scripture here as your foundation–but must use some other criteria for declaring that the Church got it right here. What is that foundation?

 

[Attejohannes]

Fair enough.

How do you know, then, that the Church got it right in keeping Hebrews in the canon and excluding the Shepherd of Hermas?

You base this on what?

You cannot use Scripture here as your foundation–but must use some other criteria for declaring that the Church got it right here. What is that foundation?

The Shephard of Hermas, I believe, does not claim to have any apostolic authority, clearly being from postapostolic date. Neither do we have epistles of St. Ignatius, St. Polycarpos, or the martyrio of Polycarpos, allthough they are extremely instructive to read.
Nor do we have Didache (despite it delightfully protestant flavour) etc.

 

[PRmerger]

The Shephard of Hermas, I believe, does not claim to have any apostolic authority, clearly being from postapostolic date. Neither do we have epistles of St. Ignatius, St. Polycarpos, or the martyrio of Polycarpos, allthough they are extremely instructive to read.
Nor do we have Didache (despite it delightfully protestant flavour) etc.

Where do you get the view that something must claim apostolic authority in order to be considered inspired?

What verse says that?

At any rate, where does Hebrews say that it was written by an apostle?

And was Luke an Apostle? :nope:

And who wrote the Gospel of Mark. Was he an apostle?

 

[Attejohannes]

Where do you get the view that something must claim apostolic authority in order to be considered inspired?

What verse says that?

At any rate, where does Hebrews say that it was written by an apostle?

And was Luke an Apostle? :nope:

And who wrote the Gospel of Mark. Was he an apostle?

The Hebrews makes a reference to Timothy (hebrews 13, 26). Luke was the companion of Paul, and Markus is mentioned in the Acts (and of course you know the testimony of Papias about his association with Peter, but I restrict my points to the internal witness of the Scriptures). So the known and unknown authors are within the circle of apostles and certainly lived in the apostolic age.

 

[PRmerger]

The Hebrews makes a reference to Timothy (hebrews 13, 26).

What does this have to do with inspiration?

I could write something and refer to 1 Timothy–that doesn’t make my writing inspired.

You need to come up with a list of criteria that you use to discern whether the over 400 ancient Christian texts are inspired or not.

You must create that list that is able to include 3 John, Hebrews, Philemon, the Gospel of Mark, but excludes the Shepherd of Hermas, the letters of Clement, the Acts of Barnabas, etc etc etc.

And then provide the source for your list–does it come from Scripture? Or do you compile it based on some other rationale, like Tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

Luke was the companion of Paul,

Ignatius was a companion of St. John.

Why do you not consider his writings inspired?

 

[PRmerger]

and Markus is mentioned in the Acts (and of course you know the testimony of Papias about his association with Peter, but I restrict my points to the internal witness of the Scriptures).

Can you name the chapter and verse in which Markus states he wrote the Gospel of Mark?

 

[Attejohannes]

What does this have to do with inspiration?

I could write something and refer to 1 Timothy–that doesn’t make my writing inspired.

You need to come up with a list of criteria that you use to discern whether the over 400 ancient Christian texts are inspired or not.

You must create that list that is able to include 3 John, Hebrews, Philemon, the Gospel of Mark, but excludes the Shepherd of Hermas, the letters of Clement, the Acts of Barnabas, etc etc etc.

And then provide the source for your list–does it come from Scripture? Or do you compile it based on some other rationale, like Tradition.

The reference was to Timothy, the person and not to the epistle.

Anyway, I think that you confuse two types of traditions here. The people among which the various gospels, letters, apocalypses etc, circulated lived in time and space much closer to the writers and the actual events than the later gnerations. They could, using their quite natural qualities distinguish something that sounded real and truthful from something that was fanciful, contained information that they did no trust, had detectable anachronisms etc. It is natural that we trust their testimony in this respect. That is quite another thing than claim that the Church, 1100, 1500 or 2000 years later have a supernatural monopoly of truth on the basis of the tradition, which certainly had proflifirated quite a lot by then.

 

[Attejohannes]

Ignatius was a companion of St. John.

Why do you not consider his writings inspired?

I consider them inspired, uplifting reading, but inspired in another sence than the Scriptures. The Scriptures proclaim the Good news for the first time. St. Ignatious and Polycarpos give testimony of their faith.

 

[PRmerger]

I consider them inspired, uplifting reading, but inspired in another sence than the Scriptures. The Scriptures proclaim the Good news for the first time. St. Ignatious and Polycarpos give testimony of their faith.

My bad.

Correction: Ignatius was a student of St. John. Why do you not consider his writings to be theopneustos?

 

[PRmerger]

The reference was to Timothy, the person and not to the epistle.

Again, my bad.

So what does reference to a holy person indicate, regarding canonicity?

Where do you get this criterion from?

 

[PRmerger]

Anyway, I think that you confuse two types of traditions here. The people among which the various gospels, letters, apocalypses etc, circulated lived in time and space much closer to the writers and the actual events than the later gnerations. They could, using their quite natural qualities distinguish something that sounded real and truthful from something that was fanciful, contained information that they did no trust, had detectable anachronisms etc.

Surely you’re not saying that someone knew what was inspired by a FIF (“funny internal feeling”), Atte?

The early Christians could read, “My breath is offensive to my wife” and know that it was inspired (here, read "God-breathed) because they just knew it was by some “quite natural quality”?

What verse in Scripture tells you that this was a quality of discernment the early Christians utilized?

It is natural that we trust their testimony in this respect

.

Ah, yes. That, friend, is exactly what Tradition is. You have, I believe, inadvertently given an explication of why you believe in Sacred Tradition and not only Sacred Scripture.

That is quite another thing than claim that the Church, 1100, 1500 or 2000 years later have a supernatural monopoly of truth on the basis of the tradition, which certainly had proflifirated quite a lot by then.

So when did this “trust in the testimony” of those who came before us end? And how do you know? What Scripture tells you we need to end this “trust in the testimony”?

 

[Attejohannes]

Surely you’re not saying that someone knew what was inspired by a FIF (“funny internal feeling”), Atte?

The early Christians could read, “My breath is offensive to my wife” and know that it was inspired (here, read "God-breathed) because they just knew it was by some “quite natural quality”?

What verse in Scripture tells you that this was a quality of discernment the early Christians utilized?

.

Ah, yes. That, friend, is exactly what Tradition is. You have, I believe, inadvertently given an explication of why you believe in Sacred Tradition and not only Sacred Scripture.

So when did this “trust in the testimony” of those who came before us end? And how do you know? What Scripture tells you we need to end this “trust in the testimony”?

I amd back from University, I walked home, there is a blizzard, now I amd getting warm, and the icicles dropping from my rather apostolic looking beard are starting to melt. I feel ready to comment, although you have been busy meanwhile, and I take the liberty no to answer point by point. Your comments circulate araound the inspiration of the Scriptures and the authority of Tradition.

If you may, I take an example of my personal history. I have been blessed (or cursed) by an extensive family tree dating back appr. 400 years. There are quite a lot of traditions related to persons and events. Some of the ancestors look, in the light of tradition, almost supernatural. One of these figures was my grandfather, who died in 1924, 28 years before I was borne. The “tradition” concerning him, mediated by my uncles and aunts, by my father (who was actually quite youg, when my grandfather died) and by people whose parents had known him, made him quite a character.

Twenty years ago I accidentally found a big folder of my grandfathers papers and personal correspondence. I started to read, and well, many of the “facts” mediated by the tradition turned to be something else. They were not totally fabricated, but the story did not go quite that way as I had been told. I also started to understand why some people, consciously or not, had a certain interest to present the “tradition” in certain way. In the light of these letters I started to see glimpses of my true grandfather behind the tradition. The letters Luther found, were the Scripture.

You probably remark that I now compare human fallible memory and tendency to fabricate stories with the Holy Spirit inspired infallibility of the Church. Yes, in certain sense I do. Let us assume St. Ignatios of Antioch would now stand in our midst and we asked him why he trusted the authority of St. Matthew (whome he cited), he might say something like: “Well, my teacher John knew the chap well, and John actully read what he wrote and found no objections. I have also met some elderly guys, who actually met him, and could tell a story or two”. If we asked him about his opinion of the infallibility of the Pope, he probably would not have been understood the question. Yet this late dogma is considered to be the product of the same infallible and inspired tradition as the canon of Scriptures.

 

[Attejohannes]

Johan -

First welcome…

If Church doctrine was in error for 100 years, 200 years, 300 years…let alone 1,500 years, it would mean Jesus words were wrong when he said the Holy Spirit would lead the Church to all Truth and that the Church was the pillar and foundation of Truth.

Einstein? Smart man…not perfect…and not given by God knowledge of all Truth. Here’s the first paragraph from wiki… source of some Truth.

Albert Einstein’s religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the god of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, and criticized atheism, preferring he said “an attitude of humility.”[1]

Now thanks to you I’ll have to research Einstein’s god “Baruch Spinoza”…

Always learning something new on CAF.

I was not actually discussing Einsteins’s religious beliefs (a fascinating subject no doubt), but used my anecdote to illustrate that being alone on one side of an argument against a vast majority, does not mean that your views are wrong.

Regarding the infallibility of the Church, I have discussed this topic extensively with PRmerger, and I will not repeat my views here (mind you, out of my laziness, not because of any disregard of you).

Sometimes I think that when Catholics are challenged about the infallibility of the Church in every minute point (to say nothing about a few major ones) their reaction is somewhat similar to that of a very fundamentalist protestant, who gets shocked if you dare to suspect that some detail, not only in the Bible but in his favourite translation of Bible might not be quite literally correct.

While I as a protestant, keep Bible as the highest norm for my doctrins and practices, I strictly speaking do not “believe” in the Bible but in the Author of the Book.

 

[jrtrent]

We accept the old testament from Jewish sources, although we do not share their views and certainly do not regard Jews having an infallible charism regarding the interpretation of the OT.

A person, or institution can be right in certain matters, wrong in others. To equate the customs, beliefs and practices of the 16th century Catholic church to the beliefs and practices of the first centuries is, on the basis of the known history, quite a leap - well, maybe a leap of faith but leap still. The desire ot Luther was go to the roots, the most original and ancient Christian witness there was and is. He found the Scriptures.

Nice explanation. Thank you.

How do you know, then, that the Church got it right in keeping Hebrews in the canon and excluding the Shepherd of Hermas?

I’ve spent time in a variety of Protestant churches, so my perspective may be skewed by any of a number of conflicting beliefs, but I don’t recall being taught the concept of there being a “the church” that made decisions for everybody. Instead, what existed were, as John R. Rice put it:

. . . independent local congregations of churches. Each one was called a church. Of about one hundred and twelve times the word ecclesia is used in the Greek New Testament, fully ninety-eight or ninety-nine times it means a local congregation. The other times it refers to that mystical body of Christ . . . not one time is the word “church” in the Bible used to represent any human organisation larger than one local congregation. When a group of local congregations are mentioned, they are called “churches” (plural, not singular), as in Galations 1:2, “the churches of Galatia.” Galations1:22, “the churches of Judaea,” and in Revelation 1:11, “the seven churches which are in Asia.”

I like Attejohannes’s use of the term “early Christian witness” as opposed to “the church” as a source of information on the canonicity of various writings. Different authors writing on the subject have come up with various lists of criteria, but one that seems common to most is that of “a document’s widespread and continuous acceptance and usage by churches [plural, not “the church”] everywhere” (from An Introduction to the New Testament, by Carson, Moo, and Morris).

Protestants also typically believe in a concept called the Providence of God. If it is His desire to communicate in some way with man, He is able to see to it that reliable texts are collected and preserved. As one article put it, commenting on the near-unanimity of Christian churches on the scope of the NT canon:

We offer the explanation that this near-unanimity is due to the Holy Spirit’s action and is not merely a fortuitous coincidence. . . There is a notable parallel here with the establishment of the OT canon. God entrusted his OT oracles to the Jews (Rom 3:2), and they were providentially guided in the recognition and preservation of the OT. Jesus and the apostles confirmed the rightness of their approach while castigating their attachment to a tradition that was superimposed on the Word of God (Matt 15:1–20; Mark 7:1–23). God entrusted his NT oracles to his people in the churches, and they are nearly unanimous in the recognition of the NT canon.apuritansmind.com/apologetics/nicolerogercanonnt/

 

[bluehiway66]

I have tried to go through this thread.

The one who started it, had a simple and very sincere question. My answer is that we may probably not want another separation of 500 years (or 5000 years or until the end of time), but we probably will have it. And nothing that I have read along this thread makes it seem otherwise.

I amd Lutheran. This does not mean that I consider Luther infallible or sinless or even particularly well-mannered and tolerant person. I simply think that he shifted again the focus of faith from Church to Christ. And I honestly think that this focus was lost from Catholics in his days and to some extent even now. That is my standpoint. Now I have said it and I do not come back to it again. At least in this thread.

It is more than abundantly clear to me that I am considered by Roman Catholics as heretic. I do not contradict, from your standpoint you are right.

And I myself would rather like to be called a heretic by the Pope himself, instead of the rather condescending and vague reference of “limited sacramental unity with the Church, which however is not a full communion”. For the apostles there were no persons or groups with “limited sacramental unity”, it was all or nothing.

If the price of unity is to claim to believe what you do not believe (like the latest Catholic dogmas of Papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Virgin), then this pretended faith does not have any value, would be dishonest, and would not save me even if these dogmas (to much of my surprise) would be true.

If I am reminded that these things are true because the Church says they are true, and we know that the Church is right, because the Church knows what is right, because the Church, according to the Church, is the Guardian of Truth, of course, according to the Church… ad infinitum. Then to me this is just similar circular deduction of which we Bible-toting protestants are so well known.

I have written rather rudely, it is partially because English is not my first language and I am not able to formulate my phrases in a more diplomatic way. Suffice to say that my intention is not to offend, and I am not questioning the salvation of Catholics.

Regarding myself, I know that I will be judged by One, who knows everything, who is All Merciful and Perfectly Just. Whatever is going to be His final word of me and my eternal destiny I know that the decision will be indusputably right, merciful and just. Here I stand…

You are in the Light. Remember that you will be judged by the One, and not by the church. The One has filled the Universe with boundless Grace for EVERYONE, and the church can’t ration it out as it sees fit. The “dogmas” are their teachings, and just as the church’s teachings taught that the earth was the center of the universe for centuries, these dogmas are their teachings, not the truth. It took them centuries to see the truth, and will take additional centuries for the church to move on and address real issues. Fancy buildings, ponderous statements, colorful vestments, and wealth doesn’t make what they teach into the truth.

 

[Porknpie]

I was not actually discussing Einsteins’s religious beliefs (a fascinating subject no doubt), but used my anecdote to illustrate that being alone on one side of an argument against a vast majority, does not mean that your views are wrong.

Regarding the infallibility of the Church, I have discussed this topic extensively with PRmerger, and I will not repeat my views here (mind you, out of my laziness, not because of any disregard of you).

Sometimes I think that when Catholics are challenged about the infallibility of the Church in every minute point (to say nothing about a few major ones) their reaction is somewhat similar to that of a very fundamentalist protestant, who gets shocked if you dare to suspect that some detail, not only in the Bible but in his favourite translation of Bible might not be quite literally correct.

While I as a protestant, keep Bible as the highest norm for my doctrins and practices, I strictly speaking do not “believe” in the Bible but in the Author of the Book.

Johan -

I understand you on the scientiest. I was just having a little fun… really and making the point that as you say:

I as a protestant, keep Bible as the highest norm for my doctrins and practices,

Is not found in the history of the Church. It was not there in 300ad…there was no bible. It was not there in 400 ad when the canon was established. It was not there in 1,000ad…

So where does the belief come from?

You are following a man made tradition my man… I’m serious on the question though.

 

[PRmerger]

I amd back from University, I walked home, there is a blizzard, now I amd getting warm, and the icicles dropping from my rather apostolic looking beard are starting to melt.

I feel ready to comment, although you have been busy meanwhile, and I take the liberty no to answer point by point. Your comments circulate araound the inspiration of the Scriptures and the authority of Tradition.

I appreciate your explication regarding family lore, Atte.

But it really did not address how it is that you know that the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch are not theopneustos.

If your criterion for including the Gospel of Luke in the canon is because he sat at the feet of an apostle, then you must, by necessity, include the writings of St. Ignatius also, who sat at the feet of an apostle.

Do you see how you cannot make a criterion for a book in the NT that also excludes all of the other ancient Christian texts?

You must appeal to some other criterion.

And that is, if you are honest: you appeal to the authority of the CC to discern this for you.

There is no other way, Atte. No other way.

 

[PRmerger]

I like Attejohannes’s use of the term “early Christian witness” as opposed to “the church” as a source of information on the canonicity of various writings.

I do, too. It is simply another way to say, “Sacred Tradition”.

 

[PRmerger]

You are in the Light. Remember that you will be judged by the One, and not by the church.

Yes, this is very Catholic.

The One has filled the Universe with boundless Grace for EVERYONE, and the church can’t ration it out as it sees fit.

Right. The Church does not claim to “ration it out as it sees fit.” Rather, God’s salvific grace is present in all the baptized.

The “dogmas” are their teachings, and just as the church’s teachings taught that the earth was the center of the universe for centuries

Could you please provide a quote from the Magisterium that declares that the eart is the center of the universe, and please include different century documents, to back up your assertion that this was taught “for centuries.”

Fancy buildings, ponderous statements, colorful vestments, and wealth doesn’t make what they teach into the truth.

Indeed. The Church, again, does not claim that its colorful vestments are the source of the truth she proclaims.