Follow up on SS

[steido01]

…since the Fathers did not speak to the issue, having no knowledge of the dispute, either side can use the Fathers to support their view, followed by a refutation from the other side using the same Fathers.

That said:
angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.solascriptura.html

And, of course, I expect and know you can provide quotes that refute.

I agree. A case could be made for either side using quotes from the fathers - indeed, cases have been made on both sides at the deep academic level (not just by petty proof-texting!). The modern disagreement over hermeneutics and principles of determining doctrine simply didn’t exist in the same form in their time, so there’s no way of knowing how they would have sided today. It’s usually not worth it to get into an internet flame war with people who refuse to admit this point. That said, it’s nice to have a quick link like the one you shared to prove the point. Thank you for sharing.

 

[JonNC]

I agree. A case could be made for either side using quotes from the fathers - indeed, cases have been made on both sides at the deep academic level (not just by petty proof-texting!). The modern disagreement over hermeneutics and principles of determining doctrine simply didn’t exist in the same form in their time, so there’s no way of knowing how they would have sided today. It’s usually not worth it to get into an internet flame war with people who refuse to admit this point. That said, it’s nice to have a quick link like the one you shared to prove the point. Thank you for sharing.

Thanks, Don. I think the more important issue is not how different communions come to their doctrinal views, but how we can reconcile those views in dialogue.

Jon

 

[steido01]

Yes. Historically Protestants followed the Magisterium without being explicitly aware of it. It is hard to explain the canon of the NT without the Magisterium - that it was opened, a tiny number of books were chosen, the great majority rejected, and it was closed. The rare Protestants that refused to accept the closing of the canon - like the Mormons - rejected by other Protestants in the past. When Sola Scriptura supporters cite other non-magisterium sources of a canon, like ancient scholars, Sacred Tradition, and councils that ratified the canon, they overlook that some Magisterium designated which scholars’ biblical (name removed by moderator)ut are “orthodox”, which 1% of traditions are reliableTradition, who would attend the canon-choosing councils, and which councils and “scriptures” could be ignored - probably the great majority of Christian (name removed by moderator)ut was disregarded.

It could be argued that it didn’t really matter if Protestants failed to recognize the Magisterium as long as they followed orthodox Christianity anyway. But we are living in a new era, when some Protestant churches and some anti-Magisterium individual Catholics are formally rejecting even the most ancient Christian natural law and morality, and now some are adding books to the New Testament. (Who’s to say the canon is “closed”? If you think the canon was closed by consensus, it can now be reopened by consensus.) If you think traditions like gnosticism were ruled out by a democratic vote of the faith community, they can be ruled in now, the same way.

How do you view the Orthodox? Some Orthodox communions hold to a 76-book bible, and at least the Coptic Orthodox use 78. Are they “adding” books, or did the Roman Catholic Church reach “consensus” and “remove” books?

It seems to me that there’s never really been a total consensus across Christendom regarding the precise number of books that belong in the bible. Lutherans, as Sola Scripturists, avoid this “numbering” problem that so many other communions have faced by simply not defining a set canon. Instead, we look at the whole history of Christendom, using the Gospels and the Homologoumena as the standard with which all other Scriptures and teachings must agree - including the other books of the bible (Antilegomena), whatever ‘final’ number you use. This is why Lutherans are not bothered by a 66-book bible or a 73-book bible or even Martin Luther’s 74-book bible – they all are held accountable to the Homologoumena and, in turn, to Christ’s very Word in the Gospels.

Side note: Mormons are not Protestant. The Protestant label (as broad and meaningless as the term is) applies only to Christians; not to non-Christians who deny the very divinity of Christ, as well as other basic tenants of the faith. But that’s another thread…

 

[Richard_Feynman]

I think you have it backwards, Richard. While not presuming to speak for Catholicism, this from the Council of Trent::

On the other hand, the Book of Concord does not list a closed canon. While Luther certainly had his opinion about books, his opinion does not constitute whether or not the canon is open or closed.

Jon

Thanks for the redirection! I admit, sometimes I get stuff backwards.

Richard Feynman

 

[Richard_Feynman]

How do you view the Orthodox? Some Orthodox communions hold to a 76-book bible, and at least the Coptic Orthodox use 78. Are they “adding” books, or did the Roman Catholic Church reach “consensus” and “remove” books?

It seems to me that there’s never really been a total consensus across Christendom regarding the precise number of books that belong in the bible. Lutherans, as Sola Scripturists, avoid this “numbering” problem that so many other communions have faced by simply not defining a set canon. Instead, we look at the whole history of Christendom, using the Gospels and the Homologoumena as the standard with which all other Scriptures and teachings must agree - including the other books of the bible (Antilegomena), whatever ‘final’ number you use. This is why Lutherans are not bothered by a 66-book bible or a 73-book bible or even Martin Luther’s 74-book bible – they all are held accountable to the Homologoumena and, in turn, to Christ’s very Word in the Gospels.

Side note: Mormons are not Protestant. The Protestant label (as broad and meaningless as the term is) applies only to Christians; not to non-Christians who deny the very divinity of Christ, as well as other basic tenants of the faith. But that’s another thread…

A Lutheran just commented earlier saying that they don’t have a closed canon…

Richard Feynman

 

[steido01]

A Lutheran just commented earlier saying that they don’t have a closed canon…

And I’m agreeing. We don’t go adding any ol’ book to our bibles because we think it teaches a nice moral lesson. As I said in my previous post, no Scripture can contradict the Gospels and the Homologoumena. But our Confessions also don’t define a canon, so the precise number is not a matter of binding doctrine, as it is in other communions. Understand the distinction?

As one blogger put it; “[To Lutherans,] the point of a canon isn’t to just have some final Table of Contents on which to draw up a dogma and so that we can excommunicate everyone who refuses to stop asking the historical questions, it’s to have a rule of faith for settling doctrinal disputes and the like.”
internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view

 

[Richard_Feynman]

How do you view the Orthodox? Some Orthodox communions hold to a 76-book bible, and at least the Coptic Orthodox use 78. Are they “adding” books, or did the Roman Catholic Church reach “consensus” and “remove” books?

It seems to me that there’s never really been a total consensus across Christendom regarding the precise number of books that belong in the bible. Lutherans, as Sola Scripturists, avoid this “numbering” problem that so many other communions have faced by simply not defining a set canon. Instead, we look at the whole history of Christendom, using the Gospels and the Homologoumena as the standard with which all other Scriptures and teachings must agree - including the other books of the bible (Antilegomena), whatever ‘final’ number you use. This is why Lutherans are not bothered by a 66-book bible or a 73-book bible or even Martin Luther’s 74-book bible – they all are held accountable to the Homologoumena and, in turn, to Christ’s very Word in the Gospels.

Side note: Mormons are not Protestant. The Protestant label (as broad and meaningless as the term is) applies only to Christians; not to non-Christians who deny the very divinity of Christ, as well as other basic tenants of the faith. But that’s another thread…

And I’m agreeing. We don’t go adding any ol’ book to our bibles because we think it teaches a nice moral lesson. As I said in my previous post, no Scripture can contradict the Gospels and the Homologoumena. But our Confessions also don’t define a canon, so the precise number is not a matter of binding doctrine, as it is in other communions. Understand the distinction?

As one blogger put it; “[To Lutherans,] the point of a canon isn’t to just have some final Table of Contents on which to draw up a dogma and so that we can excommunicate everyone who refuses to stop asking the historical questions, it’s to have a rule of faith for settling doctrinal disputes and the like.”
internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view

Ahhh yes! Thank you! This makes sense. I didn’t mean to come across as rude.

Richard Feynman

 

[marywarfield]

I don’t believe the canon was closed. Not at Trent anyway. I can’t point to exactly where it deals with the canon in Trent, I apologize for the lack of evidence for my claims. I have been through this topic before and researched. I came up with Luther closing the canon and the. Church leaving the canon open. If anyone can correct me on this, I’d appreciate it!

Richard Feynman

Let’s put it this way. The Canon FOR ALL PRACTICAL
PURPOSES is to be considered closed.
Epistles have subsequently come to light
that are verifiably considered inspired but have not
been added as they offered nothing new.
It would probably take centuries for the Church to
decide to add anything. It won’t happen in our
lifetimes.

 

[commenter]

… Lutherans are not bothered by a 66-book bible or a 73-book bible or even Martin Luther’s 74-book bible – they all are held accountable to the Homologoumena and, in turn, to Christ’s very Word in the Gospels…

The Protestant label (as broad and meaningless as the term is) applies only to Christians; not to non-Christians who deny the very divinity of Christ, as well as other basic tenants of the faith. But that’s another thread…

I believe Lutherans would be bothered by “A New New Testament” and similar movements adding books to the Bible. You argue that Christians can always reject new ideas counter to “Christ’s very Word in the Gospels” but how, without a Magisterium, do you reject the Gospel of James, or Thomas, etc which includes Christ’s words? How do you say their scriptures are “unscriptural”?
You might reject certain sects, doctrines or “scriptures” because they disagree with the “basic tenets of the faith”. But where did we get that template? The Gospel of Mary (which some Christians are now adding to Scripture) is supported by lots of Christian tradition - who cares that it is not supported by the Magisterium’s Sacred Tradition? Without the Magisterium, you have no grounds to reject this gospel, or a whole slew of other gospels, and other traditions.
We can’t reject the scriptures of the gnostics or Mormons on the grounds that they were not Christians, because they did and do call themselves such, and support that claim by “scriptures”. With no Magisterium, you can’t reject the JW’s as Christians because they reject what you (and I) consider “basic tenets” of Christian tradition, since their doctrine is very much rooted in some historic Christian traditions, including Arianism.
Again, this is not just a historical argument, adding “scriptures” is happening right now, not by fringe groups but by establishment liberal denominations. In a decade, those who hold to the 27 book NT will be regarded the same way as those who now believe a flat earth was created in 7 days.

 

[joe371]

Thanks, Don. I think the more important issue is not how different communions come to their doctrinal views, but how we can reconcile those views in dialogue.

Jon

I have often wondered what the first step should be in terms of attempting to reconcile doctrinal differences via dialogue?

 

[steido01]

I believe Lutherans would be bothered by “A New New Testament” and similar movements adding books to the Bible. You argue that Christians can always reject new ideas counter to “Christ’s very Word in the Gospels” but how, without a Magisterium, do you reject the Gospel of James, or Thomas, etc which includes Christ’s words? How do you say their scriptures are “unscriptural”?

Easy. Because the early Church, which walked with, talked with and learned from the Apostles knew -almost unanimously- that those spurious texts were not Scripture. How did they know this? Well, in addition to knowing the Apostles’ actual teachings, they read. The Gospel of James is clearly pseudepigraphical and does not accurately describe Jesus’ purpose - Origen wrote all about this. Similarly, the Gospel of Thomas didn’t contain a single reference to Christ’s death or Resurrection, instead focusing on Gnostic sayings that He clearly never said. Same for the purported ‘Gospel of Mary.’ If these books do not agree with the Gospels and the Homolegoumena, they cannot be Scripture. It’s the Faith that must be preserved, not a Magisterium or a Table of Contents.

You might reject certain sects, doctrines or “scriptures” because they disagree with the “basic tenets of the faith”. But where did we get that template?

Christ Himself, through the Apostles and their successor bishops who upheld the Apostolic Faith. When bishops attempt to add dogmas and doctrines to the Faith that contradict Scripture, their teachings cannot be considered Apostolic.

The Gospel of Mary (which some Christians are now adding to Scripture) is supported by lots of Christian tradition - who cares that it is not supported by the Magisterium’s Sacred Tradition? Without the Magisterium, you have no grounds to reject this gospel, or a whole slew of other gospels, and other traditions.
We can’t reject the scriptures of the gnostics or Mormons on the grounds that they were not Christians, because they did and do call themselves such, and support that claim by “scriptures”. With no Magisterium, you can’t reject the JW’s as Christians because they reject what you (and I) consider “basic tenets” of Christian tradition, since their doctrine is very much rooted in some historic Christian traditions, including Arianism.
Again, this is not just a historical argument, adding “scriptures” is happening right now, not by fringe groups but by establishment liberal denominations. In a decade, those who hold to the 27 book NT will be regarded the same way as those who now believe a flat earth was created in 7 days.

Those ‘liberal’ denominations are less Christian and more New Age pop-Gnosticism mixed with Pluralism and Universalism. I cannot defend them; they do not practice Sola Scriptura, they follow the teachings of their respective human Magisteriums, as you do. But unlike humans, Scripture cannot waver from the Faith because it is the very Word of God.

We can’t reject the scriptures of the gnostics or Mormons on the grounds that they were not Christians

I disagree. The Christian Faith is self-evident from Scripture.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Well, I think that’s my point precisely, that since the Fathers did not speak to the issue, having no knowledge of the dispute, either side can use the Fathers to support their view, followed by a refutation from the other side using the same Fathers.

And, of course, I expect and know you can provide quotes that refute.

I disagree Jon. First of all, Sola Scriptura is above all else, and is at its very core, nothing more than a denial of the authority of the Church that Christ established on earth. All it really is is a supposedly credible ‘alternative’ to the Catholic Authority. The Church has battled against these kinds of challenges to it’s authority for almost 2000 years now. Other groups who had challenged the True Authority were the Arians, the Montanists, the Donatists etc. The only thing that is different between the challengers of the 16th century and those of every other century are the ‘details’ of their ‘alternative’ doctrines, although of course, many of the various ‘alternatives’ are repeated from prior centuries.

You can claim, if you like and as you must really, that the Fathers didn’t speak against the concept of Sola Scriptura, but that is NOT TRUE in the most important sense. Sola Scriptura was a departure from Christianity NOT because it teaches the authority of Scripture, but because it eliminated the teaching authority of the Church. Now, of course you can say (and you must) that it does not ‘eliminate’ the teaching authority of the church, because the Lutheran version of Sola Scriptura allows for the teaching authority of YOUR church, but not for the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Of course many other SS communions make allowances for THEIR churches but not yours or mine.

The real problem with SS is that in it’s most basic form, it allows everyone to ‘add’ whatever interpretative authority they chose to arrive at the ‘correct’ interpretation. Martin Luther is responsible for this problem because of the manner in which he recklessly pronounced SS, without understanding where it would lead.

Furthermore, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura did not spring from it’s (Luther’s) inception to it’s full blown but still extremely problematic Lutheran definition. For probably 15-18 years Luther gradually ‘evolved’ Sola Scriptura through the ‘ultimate’ but also the ONLY initial ‘addition’ possible to Scripture, that of Private Interpretation. In other words, once Luther had jettisoned the authority of the Church in his own mind, and before there was another ‘church’ to take its place, the ONLY thing he had to ‘add’ to Scripture to interpret it ‘correctly’ was HIS OWN PERSONAL PRIVATE understandings. This means, and the history of Luther proves, that the progression was first - Sola Scriptura, which then ‘necessitated’ Private Interpretation. Of course, that didn’t work out all that well in Luther’s mind, so then he had to claim that it was HIS interpretation which was superior to that of everyone else. When that didn’t work out all that well, those who succeeded Luther had to replace the authority of Luther with the authority of a man made Confession. This took decades but by the time Protestants were writing ‘Confessions’ the doctrinal cows were WAY out of the barn.

I thought that your response about the Fathers was more than a little strange. As a matter of fact, every one of the Fathers that you linked to but did not actually quote, every one of them, taught AGAINST Sola Scriptura by teaching of the authority of the Church. It might suit your purposes to ‘suggest’ that various Fathers, or the Fathers in general, could POSSIBLY be interpreted as supporting SS, but they DO NOT. If you actually do believe they do, rather than just inferring that they ‘might’, then I would suggest that you actually put some chips on the table.

Post a quote from a specific Father, explain how you think that quote, or that Father supports Sola Scriptura and then we will see just exactly how the whole of that Father’s teachings line up with YOUR beliefs. In other words, take an actual stand, one with specifics.

Quite frankly Jon, the reason that the Fathers never spoke of “Sola Scriptura” using anything close to that particular term is because, as we have learned from the quotes that I have posted, Sola Scriptura was a 16th century invention, with Luther being the ‘inventor’ of course.

And yes, BTW, I CAN post quotes from any of those Fathers which absolutely PROVE (at least to anyone who has an open mind) that they were NOT Sola Scriptura, but believed in the authority of the Church.

Nothing Luther believed came out of whole cloth, but the issue of authority is approached differently by different communions. For Orthodoxy, it seems authority is in the local bishop, in communion with other bishops. Your authority is more hierarchical. In my synod, authority tends to be both locally and in the synod. The problem, long before Luther, is that authority had been dispersed through schism.
Lutherans do not recognize any special authority in Luther, other than that of a pastor and theologian, one who we believe was right on some things, and obviously wrong on others. But regardless of what Luther thought, the issue becomes how do we solve our divisions. Can two differing principles for doctrine find a unity of doctrine?

Jon, this was not a response to the question that I actually asked, which was:

“Jon, in your opinion, by what ‘authority’ did Luther create a system of theology out of his Private Interpretations?”

Personally I believe that our two communions will never be able achieve any kind of meaningful unity UNTIL we are able to have an honest and open exchange, which includes honestly and openly answering questions. These are important questions.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11932846]

I disagree Jon. First of all, Sola Scriptura is above all else, and is at its very core, nothing more than a denial of the authority of the Church that Christ established on earth. All it really is is a supposedly credible ‘alternative’ to the Catholic Authority. The Church has battled against these kinds of challenges to it’s authority for almost 2000 years now.

This assumes the paradigm that the Church that Christ founded is only and exclusively found in communion with the Bishop of Rome. While the Church of Christ is certain there, it is not there only and exclusively.

You can claim, if you like and as you must really, that the Fathers didn’t speak against the concept of Sola Scriptura, but that is NOT TRUE in the most important sense. Sola Scriptura was a departure from Christianity NOT because it teaches the authority of Scripture, but because it eliminated the teaching authority of the Church.

If you recall, I didn’t make that argument. I was quite clear that the argument, for either side, can’t be made from the Fathers.
What the Lutheran reformers rejected was not the teaching authority of the Church, but that the Bishop of Rome did not have authority not granted to it be the scriptures or the councils.

Now, of course you can say (and you must) that it does not ‘eliminate’ the teaching authority of the church, because the Lutheran version of Sola Scriptura allows for the teaching authority of YOUR church, but not for the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Of course many other SS communions make allowances for THEIR churches but not yours or mine.

And the same can be said for yours. The Bishop of Rome claims supreme authority over the universal Church. Again, while we recognize the Bishop of Rome’s authority in his see, we do not recognize a supreme universal authority, not found in scripture or the councils.

The real problem with SS is that in it’s most basic form, it allows everyone to ‘add’ whatever interpretative authority they chose to arrive at the ‘correct’ interpretation. Martin Luther is responsible for this problem because of the manner in which he recklessly pronounced SS, without understanding where it would lead.

You may (and you must) interpret it that way for your apologia, but I’ve never understood it as anything other than within and under the teaching of the Church. My individual interpretation is not valid regarding doctrine, as a Lutheran.

When that didn’t work out all that well, those who succeeded Luther had to replace the authority of Luther with the authority of a man made Confession. This took decades but by the time Protestants were writing ‘Confessions’ the doctrinal cows were WAY out of the barn.

Even if it is as you see it, you as a Catholic, understand the idea of “development of doctrine”. BTW, Luther never had a position of authority beyond priest and theologian.

I thought that your response about the Fathers was more than a little strange. As a matter of fact, every one of the Fathers that you linked to but did not actually quote, every one of them, taught AGAINST Sola Scriptura by teaching of the authority of the Church.

You see it that way because you see sola scriptura as against the teaching authority of the Church. I don’t. I see it as part of the Church’s teaching authority.

It might suit your purposes to ‘suggest’ that various Fathers, or the Fathers in general, could POSSIBLY be interpreted as supporting SS, but they DO NOT. If you actually do believe they do, rather than just inferring that they ‘might’, then I would suggest that you actually put some chips on the table.

As I said in the earlier post, and in this one, I did not make such a claim. In fact, I claimed that my view was that the ECFs could not be employed for either side. HEre is what I said:
Well, I think that’s my point precisely, that since the Fathers did not speak to the issue, having no knowledge of the dispute, either side can use the Fathers to support their view, followed by a refutation from the other side using the same Fathers.

“Jon, in your opinion, by what ‘authority’ did Luther create a system of theology out of his Private Interpretations?”

See the previous post. I believe it was a reasonable response to your question. I said,
“Lutherans do not recognize any special authority in Luther, other than that of a pastor and theologian, one who we believe was right on some things, and obviously wrong on others.”

Personally I believe that our two communions will never be able achieve any kind of meaningful unity UNTIL we are able to have an honest and open exchange, which includes honestly and openly answering questions. These are important questions.

Our communions are having an honest and open exchange, and I pray they are successful.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

And also with you,
Jon

 

[commenter]

This assumes the paradigm that the Church that Christ founded is only and exclusively found in communion with the Bishop of Rome. While the Church of Christ is certain there, it is not there only and exclusively.

If you recall, I didn’t make that argument. I was quite clear that the argument, for either side, can’t be made from the Fathers.
What the Lutheran reformers rejected was not the teaching authority of the Church, but that the Bishop of Rome did not have authority not granted to it be the scriptures or the councils.

And the same can be said for yours. The Bishop of Rome claims supreme authority over the universal Church. Again, while we recognize the Bishop of Rome’s authority in his see, we do not recognize a supreme universal authority, not found in scripture or the councils.

You may (and you must) interpret it that way for your apologia, but I’ve never understood it as anything other than within and under the teaching of the Church. My individual interpretation is not valid regarding doctrine, as a Lutheran.

Even if it is as you see it, you as a Catholic, understand the idea of “development of doctrine”. BTW, Luther never had a position of authority beyond priest and theologian.

You see it that way because you see sola scriptura as against the teaching authority of the Church. I don’t. I see it as part of the Church’s teaching authority.

As I said in the earlier post, and in this one, I did not make such a claim. In fact, I claimed that my view was that the ECFs could not be employed for either side. HEre is what I said:
Well, I think that’s my point precisely, that since the Fathers did not speak to the issue, having no knowledge of the dispute, either side can use the Fathers to support their view, followed by a refutation from the other side using the same Fathers.

See the previous post. I believe it was a reasonable response to your question. I said,
“Lutherans do not recognize any special authority in Luther, other than that of a pastor and theologian, one who we believe was right on some things, and obviously wrong on others.”

Our communions are having an honest and open exchange, and I pray they are successful.

And also with you,
Jon

 

[commenter]

This assumes the paradigm that the Church that Christ founded is only and exclusively found in communion with the Bishop of Rome. While the Church of Christ is certain there, it is not there only and exclusively…
we do not recognize a supreme universal authority, not found in scripture or the councils.
…

I don’t assume the Church Christ founded is only those in communion with the Pope. Many who reject the idea of a single universal Magisterium are implicitly guided by it more or less. The argument for a humanly visible, supreme universal authority is supported by the fact that in ancient times there appears to have been several competing Christian groups and theologies, with their own scriptures, traditions, councils and claimed apostolic links. One of those groups emerged with (some say imposed) an amazingly brief NT canon, and distilled a tiny percentage of existing Christian traditions into what that same authority called “Sacred Tradition”. Certain scholars got recognized as “Early Church Fathers” while other scholars got branded as heretics, and their Christian traditions and canons too.

The other Christianities mostly faded away, either because of the Holy Spirit or cynics say the Magisterium had sharper swords and legible copyists. The Magisterium’s view (and Scripture and Tradition) of right doctrine became the template of orthodoxy, along with Scripture and Tradition - it is a 3 legged stool.

God is certainly the source of the canon, and the determiner of which 1% of Christian traditions would be identified as Sacred Tradition. It looks like the the humanly visible means by which he communicated His will - for everyone - is something like a single Magisterium. This forum has often debated the Magisterium’s role in choosing a tiny fraction of scriptures as Scripture, but consider the importance of some supreme, universal authority eliminating 99% of Christian traditions as unreliable.

Does our tiny NT canon look like it came out of a spontaneous horizontal process of consensus, compromise, inclusiveness, “every community gets a vote”? Or does it look like a few people in authority, and those united in obedience?

 

[mmmeduk]

whirled against him and made him tumble again.

Your peak sexual activity is exactly what the new German medication was meant for! Hurry up!

30523 letsride.ru/forum/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=19
**order cheap online Pepcid in uk without prescription **
“All right,” said Trot. “In that case, I’ll make you the Queen, work for a living before you have grown big and strong.”
[
*where to buy Pepcid no prescription overnight *mtvtrunk.com/malay/forum.php?mod=forumdisplay&fid=42*cheap buying online Pepcid no prescription required *askancy.altervista.org/index.php?showtopic=197936*order online generic Pepcid next day no prescription ***order cheapest Pepcid shipped overnight without a prescription **safe order generic Pepcid no prescriptions needed *order online generic Pepcid c.o.d. without prescription *buy cheapest generic Glyburide no prescription required *buy cheap online Pepcid no prescription fast delivery *digi.ee/foorum/index.php?action=vthread&forum=212&topic=42395xtremerunning.com/forum/post48655.html#p48655apuestaverde.com/index.php?topic=835701.new#newforum.ps-apps.stronazen.pl/index.php?/topic/133184-order-generic-retin-a-from-canadian-pharmacy-no-prescription-buying-cheap-retin-a/workingclassseo.com/index.php?topic=1266933.new#newforum.cybergame.tv/index.php?action=vthread&forum=1&topic=18phathong.go.th/index.php/forum/welcome-mat/170585-order-cheap-arimidex-from-canadian-pharmacy-no-prescription-purchase-cheap-online-arimidex#170786forum.spotlight.bg/index.php/topic,1311208.new.html#newfunnyhouse.com.ua/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2174114um.tr33z.info/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=72676forum.teamspeak-tutoriel.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=739153presentations.ala.org/index.php?title=User:142.4.223.200&action=edit&redlink=1projectzomboid.ru/board/threads/licensed-pharmacy-to-buy-mysoline-no-script-needed-buy-online-generic-mysoline.2849439/rottor.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=176783indigo-clen.at.ua/forum/2-43-2#22464yapk-conference.ucoz.ru/forum/3-10-2#25866nosmodified.com/topic/123918-quality-genericsbuy-cheap-meclizine-hydrochloride-cod-without-prescription-purchase-cheap-online-meclizine-hydrochloride/malymonty.sk/index.php/forum/index.php/forum/user/14623-mydocramalymonty.sk/index.php/forum/index.php/forum/user/14623-mydocrasoundirect.ru/account/signupfreweb.org/index.php/forum/welkom/24392-best-prices-for-topamax-from-canadian-pharmacy-no-prescription-where-can-i-buy-topamax#24376](http://www.letu24.ru/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=126842
)

 

[JonNC]

=commenter;11934517]I don’t assume the Church Christ founded is only those in communion with the Pope. **Many who reject the idea of a single universal Magisterium are implicitly guided by it more or less. **The argument for a humanly visible, supreme universal authority is supported by the fact that in ancient times there appears to have been several competing Christian groups and theologies, with their own scriptures, traditions, councils and claimed apostolic links. One of those groups emerged with (some say imposed) an amazingly brief NT canon, and distilled a tiny percentage of existing Christian traditions into what that same authority called “Sacred Tradition”. Certain scholars got recognized as “Early Church Fathers” while other scholars got branded as heretics, and their Christian traditions and canons too.

Hi Commenter,
I don’t even think its safe to say that Lutherans reject a universal visible authority, our current LCMS bent on congregational polity notwithstanding. The argument given by the reformers is more along the lines of that supreme authority is not vested in one bishop, even the Bishop of Rome. Instead, I think one would find that many Lutherans would be willing to accept the authority of leadership found at the time of the Councils of the whole Church.

The other Christianities mostly faded away, either because of the Holy Spirit or cynics say the Magisterium had sharper swords and legible copyists. The Magisterium’s view (and Scripture and Tradition) of right doctrine became the template of orthodoxy, along with Scripture and Tradition - it is a 3 legged stool.

Agreed. And most of what is taught in the early Church is accepted among Lutherans.

Does our tiny NT canon look like it came out of a spontaneous horizontal process of consensus, compromise, inclusiveness, “every community gets a vote”? Or does it look like a few people in authority, and those united in obedience?

Actually, it looks like a bit of both. The discussions and disputes throughout the history of the Church has effected modern views of the canon, and has contributed to the diversity of accepted canons, even if one excludes the general protestant notion of 66 books, or the Lutheran notion of canon within a canon.
While I certainly don’t believe it was a vote, I do believe that folks such as Eusebius, Jerome, and many others cast their “votes” in a figurative sense.

Jon

 

[commenter]

“Many who reject the idea of a single universal Magisterium are implicitly guided by it more or less.” (As quoted from eminent theologian Commenter, whose internet rants hit the Pause button on America’s mental-moral mudslide).

I believe there are some Christians who consider the Magisterium authoritative all the time on faith and morals.

There is a middle group that implicitly follows the Magisterium most of the time, even if they aren’t aware of it, in strict adherence to the NT Canon and acceptance of most, or all, the Magisterium’s definition of “orthodoxy”. Most Protestants are here. They may reject or be unaware of the source, but accept the fruit.

A third group of Christians explicitly rejects the Magisterium, which means rejecting the whole fruit of the Magisterium. This includes many ancient groups, as well as groups like the Mormons or JW’s who add non-orthodox Christian books to the NT, or draw from non-orthodox Christian traditions on things like the Trinity. In recent decades mainline Protestant churches and some Catholics began rejecting even basic Christian orthodoxy on morality, and now take the next step rejecting(!) the NT canon. They are adding(!) books as we speak. They are adding Christian traditions too.

My prediction is that the middle group will gradually disappear.

 

[JonNC]

=commenter;11934891]“Many who reject the idea of a single universal Magisterium are implicitly guided by it more or less.” (As quoted from eminent theologian Commenter, whose internet rants hit the Pause button on America’s mental-moral mudslide).

:bowdown2:

I believe there are some Christians who consider the Magisterium authoritative all the time on faith and morals.

They are in communion with the Bishop or Rome.

There is a middle group that implicitly follows the Magisterium most of the time, even if they aren’t aware of it, in strict adherence to the NT Canon and acceptance of most, or all, the Magisterium’s definition of “orthodoxy”. Most Protestants are here. They may reject or be unaware of the source, but accept the fruit.

I think there is a scale here, from some very much accepting, to some only marginally.

A third group of Christians explicitly rejects the Magisterium, which means rejecting the whole fruit of the Magisterium. This includes many ancient groups, as well as groups like the Mormons or JW’s who add non-orthodox Christian books to the NT, or draw from non-orthodox Christian traditions on things like the Trinity. In recent decades mainline Protestant churches and some Catholics began rejecting even basic Christian orthodoxy on morality, and now take the next step rejecting(!) the NT canon. They are adding(!) books as we speak. They are adding Christian traditions too.

My prediction is that the middle group will gradually disappear.

You may be right. While my friend Evangelcatholic would strongly disagree, orthodox, confessional Lutheranism is limited, at least institutionally, to primarily synods that find themselves as members of the ILC. Should synods such as the LCMS falter, it will leave us few places to turn, except Rome and the EO. I think Anglo-Catholics face a similar issue.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

This assumes the paradigm that the Church that Christ founded is only and exclusively found in communion with the Bishop of Rome. While the Church of Christ is certain there, it is not there only and exclusively.

This is true but only in a limited manner. After all, God does not divinely ‘authorize’ multiple churches to teach conflicting doctrines. As an example, the Catholic and Lutheran teachings on Salvation are quite different. ONLY ONE of them could be divinely ‘authorized’. If one IS, that automatically means that other is not. IF the Catholic Church is teaching God’s Truth on Salvation, that means that the Lutheran Church is not ‘authorized’ by either God OR Scripture.

If you recall, I didn’t make that argument. I was quite clear that the argument, for either side, can’t be made from the Fathers.

I would agree that Sola Scriptura cannot be found in the Fathers, but the converse CAN BE, meaning that Sola Scriptura can be ‘disproven’ by the Fathers. Pick a Father and test my point if you like.

What the Lutheran reformers rejected was not the teaching authority of the Church, but that the Bishop of Rome did not have authority not granted to it be the scriptures or the councils.

I think you are being a little ‘generous’ to the Lutheran ‘reformers’. In fact, Luther went FAR past your point by claiming that the Pope was THE antichrist. There is a TON of evidence in the Fathers for Papal Primacy and Papal Authority. On the other hand, there is NONE for Sola Scriptura or its evil twin, the “Right of the Individual to Interpret Scripture”, another Luther innovation. There is also a TON of evidence for ‘Luther-like movements’, which happen to be those which the Fathers battled against.

And the same can be said for yours. The Bishop of Rome claims supreme authority over the universal Church. Again, while we recognize the Bishop of Rome’s authority in his see, we do not recognize a supreme universal authority, not found in scripture or the councils.

The ‘claims’ of the Bishop of Rome are a matter of fact historically, as depicted by the Fathers of the Church. The ‘role’ of a single individual who refutes the authority of the Church on the basis of nothing more than their own individual authority is also a well-documented phenomenon in Christian history.

You may (and you must) interpret it that way for your apologia, but I’ve never understood it as anything other than within and under the teaching of the Church. My individual interpretation is not valid regarding doctrine, as a Lutheran.

Again, this assumes that God ‘authorizes’ multiple communions with multiple conflicting doctrines. That kind of ‘thinking’ has resulted in the massive doctrinal dissention that is Protestantism. If your personal interpretation is not valid, as a Lutheran, what is it, specifically and exactly, which gives you ‘confidence’ in your ‘Confessions’?

Even if it is as you see it, you as a Catholic, understand the idea of “development of doctrine”. BTW, Luther never had a position of authority beyond priest and theologian.

OK. You said it. Luther never had a special authority beyond that of priest and theologian. AND YET, you have chosen to ‘follow’ him, and believe that he was right to challenge the Catholic Church of his day, to the point that even before he was excommunicated, he refuted or denied more than 4 dozen important Catholic doctrines.

Why is it that you put THAT MUCH FAITH in THAT one individual? Are you possibly claiming that he was THAT MUCH BETTER than all of the prior priests and theologians of the Catholic Church? Where does that leave all of the Calvins and a couple of hundred Smiths who have decided that Luther was not ‘all that’ and that THEY were better theologians?

You see it that way because you see sola scriptura as against the teaching authority of the Church. I don’t. I see it as part of the Church’s teaching authority.

Again, Scripture does not ‘authorize’ churches to teach. Furthermore, Sola Scriptura is not a part of the teaching authority of a Church (or a church). After all, there are SO MANY Protestant denominations which USE Sola Scriptura to teach conflicting doctrines. How do you NOT see that as an indictment against Sola Scriptura, and for that matter, the man who invented it – Martin Luther?

Our communions are having an honest and open exchange, and I pray they are successful.

I join you in that prayer, but we don’t have the same degree of confidence, primarily because I don’t see ‘both sides’ as being equally concerned about the REASONS for our differences. Personally I believe that we need to understand the ‘root’ of our differences if we are ever going to be able to solve them. I don’t think that they are going to just ‘magically disappear’ just because we want them to. I also believe that we laypeople have to play a part in that hoped for reunion by addressing these issues on our level. We simply cannot throw up our hands and suggest that ‘our leaders’ are taking care of it. They have been ‘taking care of it’ for almost 500 years now.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

BTW, I think that your statement about Luther’s authority is a nice place to start a much, much more important discussion. As a matter of fact, your position on Luther’s ‘authority’ is reasonable, BUT, it does not AT ALL match the Authority that Luther claimed to have. It is time to ‘shift’ the discussion to Luther’s ‘authority’ to revolt against the Church and determine whether he was ‘right’. If he was wrong, that undermines the foundations of Protestantism. It is time that to address this issue.