How is it that you know that the Gospel of Barnabas (who was an apostle) is not inspired?

[Randy_Carson]

I know the Gospel of Barnabas is not inspired because the undivided catholic church said so.

Then, to my dismay, history got messy.

While our Catholic friends would like for us to draw the conclusion that their church is the sole heir to the undivided catholic legacy that discerned the bible, we Lutherans make the claim that we’re a valid continuation of the western church so sadly this argument isn’t quite effective with us.

That’s an oversimplification of the argument that Catholics would (or should) make. I mean, seriously…

We might say this:

The Bible Was Written by the Catholic Church

The book of Acts records that the followers of Christ were first called “Christians” at Antioch. And around 107 AD, a man named Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, wrote the following:

“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

Note that Ignatius does not introduce the term “Catholic Church”; he uses it as if it were a term that his readers would already be familiar with. This suggests that the Church was already called “Catholic” much earlier than the date of his letter. Since the last of the original apostles, John, died of natural causes as late as 95-100 A.D., it may well be that the early body of believers was collectively known as the “Catholic Church” within the lifetime of the beloved Apostle.

So, the followers of Christ were known as the “Catholic Church” almost from the beginning, and the Catholic Church penned, preserved, protected and preached the books that later came to be known (along with the Old Testament) as the Bible.

That’s what we might say.

 

[PRmerger]

While our Catholic friends would like for us to draw the conclusion that their church is the sole heir to the undivided catholic legacy that discerned the bible, we Lutherans make the claim that we’re a valid continuation of the western church so sadly this argument isn’t quite effective with us.

Why we love it when non-Catholic Christians acknowledge that they defer to the authority of the CC in the discernment of the canon (besides the obvious reason: it’s the intellectually honest thing to do.)

• It affirms that you are* not* Sola Scriptura.
• It affirms that you believe in the charism of infallibility. That is, you believe that the CC, without error, was able to declare what was inspired and what was not. Thus, men have been given the charism of infallibility. A multitude of times.

 

[PRmerger]

perhaps that is true…we’ll see

As you compile your list of criteria, I have a time-saver for you, Radical. Do not go with authorship. For we will simply respond with one word:

Hebrews

And I also suggest that you not go with, “It has to mention Jesus to be inspired”. For we will simply proffer this:

3 John.

But I am anxious to see your list.

 

[benjohnson]

Why we love it when non-Catholic Christians acknowledge that they defer to the authority of the CC in the discernment of the canon (besides the obvious reason: it’s the intellectually honest thing to do.)

• It affirms that you are* not* Sola Scriptura.
• It affirms that you believe in the charism of infallibility. That is, you believe that the CC, without error, was able to declare what was inspired and what was not. Thus, men have been given the charism of infallibility. A multitude of times.

Well… we defer to the authority of the undivided catholic church. Of course, we’re being stinkers by adding that qualifier.

We certainly are not Sola Scriptura as understood in the modern sense - it baffles us that so many should cast aside so much that is good, holy, and right. Our church only uses the bible to correct.

And I don’t deny that the Pope hasn’t said infallible things, only that by nature of his office that he has the ability to do so without question.

 

[Radical]

My case is the same as yours, Radical: because the Catholic Church discerned this for you and me.

That’s our point. You argue against the authority of the CC, yet each and every time you quote from the NT you are giving tacit submission to the authority of the CC.

PR, you need to actually read what I have said, understand it and then respond to what I have said… please re-read my posts and note that my case can’t be the same as yours b/c you can’t revisit the matter b/c in your mind it has been infallibly determined. In contrast, I argue against the infallible authority of the CC. I accept that the early church (and the bishops thereof) have/had a limited fallible authority. Can you see the difference…if not, keep reading what I have posted until you have it figured out…like B_Wolf, I have no desire to keep explaining the same thing over and over again b/c you can’t be bothered to take the time to understand what I have written.

 

[PRmerger]

Well… we defer to the authority of the undivided catholic church. Of course, we’re being stinkers by adding that qualifier.

Why does division create an atmosphere for truth to be diluted?

Even if Judas left Christ, did that vitiate Christ’s gospel?

(Note: no one is being compared to Judas here, ok!)

We certainly are not Sola Scriptura as understood in the modern sense - it baffles us that so many should cast aside so much that is good, holy, and right. Our church only uses the bible to correct.

As does ours.

And I don’t deny that the Pope hasn’t said infallible things, only that by nature of his office that he has the ability to do so without question.

It’s not the Pope, but the Magisterium that discerned for you and me this canon.

And I’m not sure what you mean by “without question.” Where are we told that we cannot question?

 

[benjohnson]

That’s an oversimplification of the argument that Catholics would (or should) make. I mean, seriously…

We might say this:

The Bible Was Written by the Catholic Church

Well said, and I’m glad that you say it with conviction, for it is true.

The only qualifier to my applause is that we Lutherans would say that we’re part of the ‘catholic’ church as well - not the specific Roman Catholic in communion with the Bishop of Rome, but the universal holy and apostolic church that we look forward being full members of in unity.

 

[PRmerger]

I accept that the early church (and the bishops thereof) have/had a limited fallible authority.

Excellent.

So you are decidely NOT Sola Scriptura.

And if they were fallible, where was their error? Do you believe that they should have excluded, say, Hebrews, since its authorship is unknown? Or perhaps excluded 3 John since it never mentions Christ?

Where was their error, if their decision was fallible?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well said, and I’m glad that you say it with conviction, for it is true.

The only qualifier to my applause is that we Lutherans would say that we’re part of the ‘catholic’ church as well - not the specific Roman Catholic in communion with the Bishop of Rome, but the universal holy and apostolic church that we look forward being full members of in unity.

Understood. You have been baptized into the one body of Christ and accept some of the teachings of the Catholic Church; therefore, you do indeed have some degree of communion with the Catholic Church.

However, the Church founded by Christ upon Peter the Rock is not an invisible communion of all believers regardless of denomination, creed or fellowship.

But that is another thread.

 

[PRmerger]

I have no desire to keep explaining the same thing over and over again b/c you can’t be bothered to take the time to understand what I have written.

Ah, so there it is. The proverbial one foot out the door prologue. Attempting to make an early escape.

First came the “It’s off topic so start another thread”.

We did.

Now, after posting for just a few hours there’s the hint: I may be leaving.

Please just address the question, Radical.

What criteria do you use to discern what’s* theopneustos* and what’s not? And make sure your criteria are able to include all the NT books while excluding all the apocrypha.

 

[benjohnson]

Why does division create an atmosphere for truth to be diluted?

My personal thoughts: Perhaps division can expose the truth, as the Catholic church certainly changed after the reformation. That said, the true split with the church is not the reformation given we Lutherans still claim to be catholic, but the great schism - I would think that it would be easier to listen to the Holy Spirit with both ears so to speak.

It’s not the Pope, but the Magisterium that discerned for you and me this canon.

And we thank our ancestors for their wisdom in listening so attentively to the Holy Spirit.

And I’m not sure what you mean by “without question.” Where are we told that we cannot question?

I don’t think you have too much room for doubt - from Munificentissimus Deus:

Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which We have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

 

[joe370]

benjohnson;10183901]My personal thoughts: Perhaps division can expose the truth, as the Catholic church certainly changed after the reformation. That said, the true split with the church is not the reformation given we Lutherans still claim to be catholic, but the great schism - I would think that it would be easier to listen to the Holy Spirit with both ears so to speak.

Hey Ben, I understand what you are saying, in terms of the Lutheran church.

True the east - west schism caused a split but the reformation totally fractured Jesus’ Mystical Body, the Church. It has done considerably more damage than the east - west split, wouldn’t you say?

 

[benjohnson]

Understood. You have been baptized into the one body of Christ and accept some of the teachings of the Catholic Church; therefore, you do indeed have some degree of communion with the Catholic Church.

I thank you for that… I will say that if you find a Lutheran that doesn’t profess 99.9% of what the Catholic church teaches, I invite you to correct them.

However, the Church founded by Christ upon Peter the Rock is not an invisible communion of all believers regardless of denomination, creed or fellowship.

But that is another thread.

I pray that God finds Lutheran legal wrangling amusing

 

[joe370]

What criteria do you use to discern what’s* theopneustos* and what’s not? And make sure your criteria are able to include all the NT books while excluding all the apocrypha.

Well, I think we can all agree, including Radical, that the answer cannot be the holy Bible.

 

[benjohnson]

True the east - west schism caused a split but the reformation totally fractured Jesus’ Mystical Body, the Church. It has done considerably more damage than the east - west split, wouldn’t you say?

I struggle with this in some small measure - leaving aside that Lutherans are no way responsible for Calvin and his children.

There is beauty in unity, and I strongly desire this. But there is also a beauty in some of our smaller churches - in some measure, I sometimes feel that they can reach people with the Gospel in ways that my church can’t.

For example - I have a baptist friend who came to Christ kicking and screaming. I wonder if his church was the only one that could have captured his heart.

We also must keep in mind that our distant Protestant friends didn’t have the benefits of having cathedrals, bishops and church law. Many of them had a barn, a well used bible, and an oil-lamp. That they come so close to a full faith is testament to God’s will.

And even this forum can trace it’s roots to the reformation/counter-reformation in that we here are generally laity discussing the Gospel - this is a very “Lutheran” idea: that we educate ourselves in the Gospel, talk among each-other about it, and even debate, and most importantly encourage each other in faith.

 

[PRmerger]

Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which We have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

Doubt is different from questioning, ben.

And there is also a difference between obstinate, willful doubt and the doubt that is often used in modern language, which is often synonymous with “questioning”.

One cannot have the former, but can have the latter.

Take this quote from the great Cardinal Newman: : “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, for a man may be annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical problem, without doubting that it admits an answer.”

 

[PRmerger]

My personal thoughts: Perhaps division can expose the truth, as the Catholic church certainly changed after the reformation/

No, ben. The Church did not change. At least, not in the Truth she proclaimed, which was given once, for all, to the saints. The Truth was whole and entire before the death of the last apostle.

Now, perhaps her praxis changed.

But one cannot indict the orthodoxy of the Church because her orthopraxy was faulty, any more than one can accuse Christ of teaching lies because Judas betrayed him.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I think we can all agree, including Radical, that the answer cannot be the holy Bible.

Yes, I think even Radical cannot now say that the answer lies in Scripture.

The answer to that theological question is answered ONLY by the Church.

 

[Nicea325]

My case is the same as yours, Radical: because the Catholic Church discerned this for you and me.

That’s our point. You argue against the authority of the CC, yet each and every time you quote from the NT you are giving tacit submission to the authority of the CC.

Precisely! It is a self-refuting argument which Radical refuses to accept. And why? Because the CC cannot be correct and self-pride is damaged.

 

[benjohnson]

No, ben. The Church did not change. At least, not in the Truth she proclaimed, which was given once, for all, to the saints. The Truth was whole and entire before the death of the last apostle.

Now, perhaps her praxis changed.

But one cannot indict the orthodoxy of the Church because her orthopraxy was faulty, any more than one can accuse Christ of teaching lies because Judas betrayed him.

I do disagree, naturally and perniciously

One of the more fundamental changes thankfully is that the Catholic church stopped the teaching that burning heretics is a good idea to protect the flock. Add to the dogma of Papal Infallibility, Assumption, and Immaculate Conception and I think not only would us Lutherans say things have changes, our Orthodox friends would say things have changed.

You’ve grown up with Papal Infallibility, but even Catholic teaching documents before the bull declared that there was no such thing:

From Keenan’s Catechism - in the 1800’s:
(Q.) Must not Catholics believe the Pope himself to be infallible?
(A.) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is by the bishops of the Church.

Now it is possible for you to say that these changes don’t amount to much, but it’s also fair for me to say that theses indeed are changes on at least some level.

EDIT: Don’t get me wrong… I don’t think these changes are that big of a deal, nor do they allow my to go “AHA! The Catholic church is just as rudderless as we are!.” Theses changes only heighten my desire that we should have unity so that we can all listen more carefully to the Holy Spirit that much more carefully.