I don't even understand Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter kbwall
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I need a question answered and I do apologize if I am getting a little off the subject here, but this is really bothering me.

I have several Protestant friends (who love the Lord with their whole hearts) tell me that when they receive “communion”, it is a symbol of the body of Christ and that the “juice” is also a symbol. Others say “it is what you believe it is”. They believe the Bible as The Word, but when I bring up the fact that Jesus said, this IS my body and this IS my blood, He is not talking about symbols. They can not answer or they disagree among themselves about this.

The other question I have, basically for Episcopal members, is how they justify gay “priests” within their church when Scripture is very clear about homosexuality.

Please, I intend no offense to anyone reading this as I am truly searching for answers.
 
Augsburg1530 said:
What happens when it’s a Pope that rejects the canonicity of the DC books?
Click to expand...
Moot question now, isn’t it? What I mean is, the final infallible definition of the canon came through the Council of Trent in 1556.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Moot question now, isn’t it? What I mean is, the final infallible definition of the canon came through the Council of Trent in 1556.
Click to expand...
That is true. However, my question isn’t aimed at questioning doctrine post-Trent, but rather, how was it error for the reformers to question the DC books, but not Catholics, including a Pope? (Before Trent.)
 
Augsburg1530 said:
That is true. However, my question isn’t aimed at questioning doctrine post-Trent, but rather, how was it error for the reformers to question the DC books, but not Catholics, including a Pope? (Before Trent.)
Click to expand...
The infallible definition at the Council of Trent came over concern of errors in the actions of the reformers rejecting the 7 books in the Old Testament. As you probably know, Martin Luther had concerns over other books, in the New Testament.
 
JonNC said:
And blessings to you, my friend.
No. I don’t believe it is necessarily accurate to say “Catholics (or Orthodox) added books”, or “Protestants removed books”. All of these books are part of the history of the Church Catholic. The vast majority are accepted without dispute. The disputes we have today about the DC’s and others is much older and deeper than Trent, or the Reformation.

Jon
Click to expand...
I agree 1000%! 👍

Blessings to you as well.
 
And what makes Martin Luther’s single-handed decision binding on the consciences of every non-Catholic Western Christian to come after him?

(Actually, I think that center isn’t holding, either. Witness how people are so eager to believe in Dan Brown and the Banned Books of the Bible. The oppressive Catholic Church is keeping the real scriptures from us! Who’s to say this isn’t supposed to be in the Bible! I’ve been invited to BIBLE STUDIES by lovely Baptists, reading those un-Gospels. They put divine faith in it! Seriously, this happened!)

I grew up Catholic but abandoned the practice of my faith at 18. When I was mid 20s and ready to engage questions of faith again, I studied the New Testament assiduously, reading the whole thing, whole books (no proof-texting and someone else’s presuppositions and agendas), just took it at face value, what it was saying…

…and I thought, my goodness, that’s the Catholic Church!

The Epistles just resound with apostolic condemnation of those who would divide, those who would compete against the appointed episkopoi and presbyteroi.

I have to be an apostolic Christian, and I am a Westerner through and through (don’t have an Eastern mind–too culturally different for me, sorry), so I must…be…Catholic.

It’s not like I was looking for that answer or wanted that answer. But I just couldn’t ken how a denomination or church founded on rebellion and division could turn around and assert authority over its members and condemn any further rebellion and division. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Willis!!!

I don’t see anything of God fostering rebellion and division in the entire creation. I know who did–the primoridal rebellion and division. Who led one third of the angels against God and got them cast out??? The author of rebellion and division!!! :eek:

And in America, I think we are uniquely privileged to see what happens when you have free market religion–I love freedom, don’t get me wrong. You get church shopping where the customer is always right. Goodbye any semblance of the center holding, in faith, or morals. Hello Joseph Smith. Hello L. Ron Hubbard. Hello Church of the Jedi. Hello goddess rosaries and Christy-fixes. :eek:

Ah well, it’s entertaining. 🍿
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
The infallible definition at the Council of Trent came over concern of errors in the actions of the reformers rejecting the 7 books in the Old Testament. As you probably know, Martin Luther had concerns over other books, in the New Testament.
Click to expand...
That’s true, as did others before him. Notice, however, that you say the infallible decision came from Luther and other reformers rejecting the 7 DC books. I am sure that was in the thinking of Trent; but it’s a fact that faithful Catholics rejected them as well. Should they be deemed heretical, or only Protestants who reject them?
 
kentuckyliz said:
And what makes Martin Luther’s single-handed decision binding on the consciences of every non-Catholic Western Christian to come after him?
Click to expand...
It isn’t. I know of many Lutherans who accept the DC books as part of the canon, even though they do not draw doctrine directly from them, because of their status as disputed.
 
Augsburg1530 said:
That’s true, as did others before him. Notice, however, that you say the infallible decision came from Luther and other reformers rejecting the 7 DC books. I am sure that was in the thinking of Trent; but it’s a fact that faithful Catholics rejected them as well. Should they be deemed heretical, or only Protestants who reject them?
Click to expand...
Neither that ‘considered’ prior to an infallible decision.
 
Augsburg1530 said:
So, then was Luther in error or opposed to the catholic faith in rejecting them prior to the infallible decision?
Click to expand...
I believe Luther was in error. This does not mean I think he was wrong for wanting to reform the Church. You can’t reform what you leave and are no longer a part of. I think once he made his mind up, things snowballed and even Martin Luther couldn’t stop them. From what I’ve read, politics played a major part in those who supported Martin Luther. We also know that even some of his followers left him, from what I believe was his teaching on interpretation of scriptures and how it was received by his followers. We all know that some of his beliefs are no longer held by some Protestants today.

Please understand that I don’t think the divide between Catholics and most Protestants is not as wide as some make it out to be and I’m certainly in no position to judge anyone.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I believe Luther was in error. This does not mean I think he was wrong for wanting to reform the Church. You can’t reform what you leave and are no longer a part of. I think once he made his mind up, things snowballed and even Martin Luther couldn’t stop them. From what I’ve read, politics played a major part in those who supported Martin Luther. We also know that even some of his followers left him, from what I believe was his teaching on interpretation of scriptures and how it was received by his followers. We all know that some of his beliefs are no longer held by some Protestants today.

Please understand that I don’t think the divide between Catholics and most Protestants is not as wide as some make it out to be and I’m certainly in no position to judge anyone.
Click to expand...
I just wanted your take on it, Prodigal. I know you’re a reasonable person from reading your other posts.

I am sure that politics played a part in those who supported Luther, most notably Frederick the Wise. As far as things snowballing… that may be true of the wider reformation movement (to include Zwingli, Bucer, etc.). Otherwise, at least within Germany, it was fairly controlled and conservative. The problem with any examination of the Lutheran Reformation, is that feelings and opinion outweigh the actual events and it’s almost impossible to be unbiased in the matter.

Most Protestants do not accept his views today because most Protestants trace their theological lineage to the Reformed churches, not the Lutheran (we don’t have any distinct denominational breakaway churches).

To the original topic of the deuterocanonical books… Luther was within that stream of the Catholic church that doubted their canonicity. He was no more radical in this than any Catholic before him who rejected them. He did not force those who adhered to the evangelical viewpoint to reject them; he did not reject them because they “taught purgatory,” as some are wont to accuse him of; he included them in his translation of the Bible precisely because he understood that his viewpoint was in the minority and that most of his readers accepted them.
 
Greetings JonNC good to hear from you,

I am at a disadvantage in regards to the quote you provided without reading its full context from the Cardinal, so it would be difficult to assertain an opinion. However I would like to make mention that what ever the Cardinal, St. Jerome, St. Augustine or any other Catholic who “questioned” the Deutero’ books, never could remove them from the official canon of scripture. I must remind you that the Cardinals quote does not make mention that although St. Jerome did not want to include the DC books in his Vulgate. St. Jerome obeyed the Pope and included them in his translation of the canon books of the bible.

This obeying of Church councils and authority from the Chair of Peter was excercised by those Saints who may have argued against the DC books, including Cardinal Cajetan who has no authority to remove any canonized book from the bible.

Trent did not canonize any books of the bible, the books were already canonized by the Catholic Church. The council of Trent “closed” any further dispute of the DC books with an anathema attached.

Peace be with you
JonNC;7445632]Hello my good friend Gabriel,
What is your take on this quote by Cardinal Cajetan, where he places the D-C’s in with the apocrypha?
Click to expand...
Quote:
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus.
Click to expand...
Jon
 
Luther removed seven books from the CANON of Scriptures in his German translation of the Bible and put them in a separate appendix following the OT. His preface to them said, “Apocrypha – that is, books that are not held equal to the Holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” He left the pages unnumbered to further indicate that he did not consider them part of Scripture. He did not remove them entirely, but made it clear that [in his opinion] they were inferior to the books he regarded as Scripture.

Luther also removed Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation from the CANON and placed them at the end of the New Testament. He wrote prefaces stating that he did not regard them as Scripture.

The King James Version followed Luther’s tactic and placed the so-called “Apocrypha” in an appendix. The British and Foreign Bible Society, by a resolution in 1827, is responsible for the complete removal of the “Apocrypha” from Protestant Bibles.

Luther’s prefaces to Hebrews, James and Jude, and Revelation can be read here:

godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_f8.htm

Luther continues his diatribe against the Catholic Church and his contention that the Pope is the antiChrist and the Church is the Whore of Babylon. For example, from Luther’s Preface to Revelation:

“In chapter 14, Christ first begins to slay His Antichrist with the breath of His mouth . . . Upon this Gospel follows the second angel’s voice, saying that the city of Babylon shall fall and the spiritual papacy be destroyed.”

Anyone who has an interest in this subject can find the entire history of it in Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger, Gary M Michuta, The Grotto Press, 2007.

Gary Michuta’s website is www.handsonapologetics.com

Jim Dandy
 
The abuse of freedom. We arrive at a time when man invents the printing press, new revelations of science and thinking that man is god.

No man has the authority to seperate what God has joined together. Not even the Council of Trent could remove or relabel the canon list of inspired books of God.

Remember the majority of the reformers were “Catholic” clergy. These never had any authority to remove any books of the canon or label them as un-inspired of God. To argue them takes on another subject matter, but it never justifies a removal or relabeling of any canonized books.

The authority the reformers took from was the Jewish OT canon, because they found no Hebrew counter parts to the Greek translations thus disproving their authenticity. Although in 1947 the Hebrew counter parts are revealed from the dead sea scrolls, disproving Luthers argument to relabel the DC books.

Luther had forgotten that the reason the Jews made a canon (long after the resurrection date unknown) of the Old Testament books and removed 7 of them was to prove Jesus a false prophet. The Catholic Church has always maintained these books in her liturgy before the canon of the bible 300 years later.
kbwall;7445707Yes, but what gives them the authority to state that those books are not inspired? The Catholic church has the lineage of the Pope and the bishops dating back all the way to the apostles and are guided by the Holy Spirit. But what gives the reformers, who don’t claim such lineage the authority to state which books are canon, and which are not?
Click to expand...
 
I wouldn’t put too much stock into SS being false or not based on my own understanding, or lack there of. Things are true or false regardless. I have a real hard time getting my head around the doctrine of the Trinity, I would even go as far as to say that I probably don’t really understand it, but I accept it as truth. There are a lot of compelling arguments against SS, hard to understand I would not count amongst them.

God bless you
 
The canon of Scriptures was decided at the Council of Rome (A.D. 382), Pope Damasus I presiding. Following the Council, Pope Damasus commissioned St. Jerome to translate the Scriptures into Latin (to replace the Old Latin version). The result was the Vulgate, which contains the canon set by the Roman council. The Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419) confirmed the same canon. The decrees of these regional councils were confirmed by Popes Innocent I and Boniface.

Protestant scholars usually use the date of 397 for the canon. For example, quoting the (Protestant) Ryrie Study Bible: “The first church council to list all twenty-seven books of the New Testament was the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397.”

Ryrie doesn’t mention it, but the Catholic Bishops also canonized the Old Testament at the same time they canonized the New Testament, in the same Councils. The OT writings canonized were the 46 books of the Greek Septuagint that the Catholic Church inherited from Jesus and the Apostles.

Trent affirmed the canon as contained in the ancient Vulgate – raising it to the level of dogma. (A “dogma” is a formally defined doctrine.)

No individual – no cardinal, no bishop, no priest, no layman – sets the canon of Scripture. They may have an opinion, they may not agree, but the Catholic Church determines the canon.

Roma locuta est, causa finita est - Rome has spoken, the case is closed (St. Augustine).

Jim Dandy

edit to correct capitalization
 
=Jim Dandy;7448040]The canon of Scriptures was decided at the Council of Rome (A.D. 382), Pope Damasus I presiding. Following the Council, Pope Damasus commissioned St. Jerome to translate the Scriptures into Latin (to replace the Old Latin version). The result was the Vulgate, which contains the canon set by the Roman council. The Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419) confirmed the same canon. The decrees of these regional councils were confirmed by Popes Innocent I and Boniface.
Click to expand...
If it were already canonized, 3 questions:
  1. Why would Trent even bother with the issue, other than to say the canon was closed long ago?
  2. Why would Catholic scholars such as Cajetan and Erasmus dare question the DC’s?
  3. Why do the Orthodox have different canons, as the Church was undivided at the times mentioned?
Trent affirmed the canon as contained in the ancient Vulgate – raising it to the level of dogma. (A “dogma” is a formally defined doctrine.)
Click to expand...
Then it wasn’t set.
No individual – no cardinal, no bishop, no priest, no layman – sets the canon of Scripture. They may have an opinion, they may not agree, but the Catholic Church determines the canon.
Click to expand...
Then why couldn’t Luther? To my knowledge, there was no dogmatic declaration regarding the placement or order of the books. He thought they were not the level of scripture. So did others. And Luther was not covered by Trent.

The fact is that different communions, even those of Orthodoxy, have had different canons of the OT.

Jon
Jon
 
kbwall said:
Many protestants argue against Catholicism based on the fact that some of our beliefs don’t come directly from the Bible. But it was Catholics who made the Bible in the first place. If you can’t trust the source of the Bible, how can you trust the Bible? Further, some books are removed from the Bible in Prostestant canon; what gave them the authority to say which books belonged?
Click to expand...
Hi and welcome home ! Exactly the crux of the matter, Authority !👍

As the deuters are being argued it seems our seperated brethern agree on the 26 NT books. I think there be a contridiction here.

Opinion: I think Martin Luther saw the contridiction and placed the deuters and some epsitles in an appendix, as Jim Dandy has shown.

God Bless
🙂
 
JonNC wrote:
He [Luther] thought they were not the level of scripture. So did others. And Luther was not covered by Trent.
Click to expand...
Luther made Trent necessary.

I’ll get to your other questions, but I don’t follow the logic of accepting Luther’s opinion of the OT and rejecting his opinion of the NT. As I said earlier, Luther also thought Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation “were not the level of scripture.”

Peace, Jim Dandy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top