If Protestantism Is True

[JonNC]

=stewstew03;9438282]Hey Jon (in NC) - I actually had you in mind when I parenthetically wrote “not all.” I think it’s great that the Lutheran tradition of sola scriptura hasn’t changed in 430 years. But surely you have seen (and can understand) our frustration when we have these discussions about protestant doctrine and we have to deal with it on multiple fronts - Lutheran, Calvinist, and their many offspring - it is, in fact, a moving target (though not in a temporal manner).

Hi Stew,
I understand your frustration. I really do. It is particularly difficult when some posters choose not to identify their communion, for whatever reason, in their profile, even for me.

You’re right it is polemic, my apologies Jon.

No need to apolgize.

I was borrowing a quote from another Martin Luther (King, Jr) who said: "If you haven’t found something worth dying for, you aren’t fit to be living.” I was not trying to fan the flames of discord, but wanted to make the point that as we (all Christians) continue to shape and mold Christ to fit our wants and needs, we will dilute Him to the point that we will empty His death and resurrection of its redemptive meaning.

I think you know already that I agree with you. Unity is Christ’s call, not division.

Jon

 

[stewstew03]

Unity is Christ’s call, not division.

Amen.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m !!! Next Tuesday evening at our left-handed-men-who-wear-glasses service, I plan to confront my pastor as to how he, being infallible, could have forgotten to tell me that the true Church was underground!!! ( Right after I eat some of Mrs. Hilda’s tuna casserole, which is really good. )

Jon

Jon,

I must admit my study of Protestant thought is incomplete. You know we get pigeon holed by our prejudice. I wake every morning. I put my right shoe on first then my left shoe. I do wear glasses. I noticed that I am right handed and probably neglected the left-handed-men-who-wear-glasses service in my study…thanks for the info

 

[Contarini]

For the life of me, I simply cannot grasp how anyone believes Scripture is SUPREME over the church;and yet, not a single word from the Bible ever makes such a loud declaration. If it is Biblical therefore it must have been said and taught from the get-go,but I am still waiting to read those important passages proving me wrong? Such a strong belief but not ONE ecumenical council ever discusses it or mentions it briefly? Truly mind boggling.

Actually an ecumenical Council did–Vatican II in Dei Verbum says that the Church is the servant of the Word. And yes, I know that the Word of God comes to us in more forms that Scripture according to Catholic teaching (with which I agree), but Scripture is the Word of God. Hence. the Catholic Church (in entire agreement with the teachings of the early Church) has proclaimed Scripture to be supreme over the Church.

I get why you would attack sola Scriptura. But when you attack the supremacy of Scripture you are attacking your own Tradition.

Edwin

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

I must admit my study of Protestant thought is incomplete. You know we get pigeon holed by our prejudice. I wake every morning. I put my right shoe on first then my left shoe. I do wear glasses. I noticed that I am right handed and probably neglected the left-handed-men-who-wear-glasses service in my study…thanks for the info

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Actually an ecumenical Council did–Vatican II in Dei Verbum says that the Church is the servant of the Word. And yes, I know that the Word of God comes to us in more forms that Scripture according to Catholic teaching (with which I agree), but Scripture is the Word of God. Hence. the Catholic Church (in entire agreement with the teachings of the early Church) has proclaimed Scripture to be supreme over the Church.

I get why you would attack sola Scriptura. But when you attack the supremacy of Scripture you are attacking your own Tradition.

Edwin

I agree with part of your assessment,but I do not agree with you that the teachings of the early church and the CC of today has proclaimed Scripture supreme over the church. Do you have such proclamations by the church stating Scripture is supreme over the church?

I disagree as well by attacking the supremacy of Scripture I am attacking my own Tradition. By the way, you used an upper case T meaning it has Apostolic origins-correct? Where has the CC at any point in time taught explicitly that Scripture is supreme over the church?

It is one thing to say Scripture is supreme and entirely another matter to claim it is supreme OVER the church. Where does Scripture teach it is supreme even over the church?

 

[mackbrislawn]

Both Roman Catholics and Protestants have the same exact New Testament Canon. Why is it that you as a Roman Catholic are asking a Protestant to prove the book of Revelation is inspired Scripture since Roman Catholicism already agrees to this ?

When a teacher asks a pupil a question, it isn’t because the teacher doesn’t know the answer; the teacher wants to know if the pupil knows the answer.

The Catholic accepts the book of Revelation as inspired because the Church says so. But if the Protestant does not believe in the Church, on what basis does the Protestant accept Revelation as inspired? It has to be a different basis. So what basis is it?

 

[Nicea325]

When a teacher asks a pupil a question, it isn’t because the teacher doesn’t know the answer; the teacher wants to know if the pupil knows the answer.

The Catholic accepts the book of Revelation as inspired because the Church says so. But if the Protestant does not believe in the Church, on what basis does the Protestant accept Revelation as inspired? It has to be a different basis. So what basis is it?

They have no God-given providence but their own opinions.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Chafer DTS;9416678 I was under the impression that you and I agreed with the New Testament Canon listing. It was my understanding and personal instruction that traditional Roman Catholicism held that Scripture is inspired. Are you contending that Protestants are in error in their New Testament Canon listing even though it is the same as Roman Catholicism ? After all the title of the thread says " If Protestantism is true " as you said. I only discuss issues regarding the inspiration from Scripture with atheist and agnostics who attack the quality and nature of Scripture. I know it is Scripture from it’s internal and external evidence. Since you are a professing Roman Catholic who agrees that it already is Scripture why are you asking me something that we agree with ? The church is only a wittness and keeper of Scripture.

Catholics feel that the Church is the creator of scripture as well. That Church men, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote scripture on behalf of the Church, to the Church, and for the Church. So the Church is not only a witness and keeper, although it certainly is those.

**

The church itself is not infallible in what it declares

**.
If the Church is not infallible in what it declares, we have no assurance that the Church witnessed and kept scripture truly.

For your position it requires proof of the claimed authority of Roman Catholicism
You by your question are failing to first prove what you already assert. Thus a circular argument. You must prove the authority of the Roman See first before making out your questions about issues relating to the Canon. How do we know for certain that the authority of the Roman See is true ?

Good point.

Catholics start with Church, and derive scripture. Protestants start with scripture, and derive church. Catholics assume Church to begin with. Protestants assume scripture to begin with. For Catholics, proving Church is not necessary, because it is an initial assmumption–the Church simply IS, like Yaweh, I AM.

Many Protestants simply take scripture for granted, and assume what they find between the black covers is the ‘bible.’ More thoughtful ones wonder how to demonstrate scripture is indeed true and the word of God. And they often do a good job if it with atheists and agnostics, using external and internal evidence. I’m not convinced myself. Especially as far as the book of Revelation. It was written late, maybe even after all the apostles were dead, so the apostles themselves, at least most of them, never knew anything about it. Therefore Revelation can’t contain anything essential. Plus, it was also late in being accepted as inspired, canonical.

Without proving this first no one will take your question in a serious manner. I also think it is bad taste in demanding and asking fellow professing believers to prove that Revelation is inspired Scripture when it is already agreed that it is. Hope you see what I am saying. I consider your question as logically invalid and is why I feel no need to answer it since it has already unproven presupositions.

We all might agree that Revelation is inspired, but for different reasons. One party has their reasons, and the other party a different set. The Catholic believes in Revelation because the Church says so, but the Protestant would have a different reason. What is it?

 

[Contarini]

I agree with part of your assessment,but I do not agree with you that the teachings of the early church and the CC of today has proclaimed Scripture supreme over the church. Do you have such proclamations by the church stating Scripture is supreme over the church?

I disagree as well by attacking the supremacy of Scripture I am attacking my own Tradition. By the way, you used an upper case T meaning it has Apostolic origins-correct? Where has the CC at any point in time taught explicitly that Scripture is supreme over the church?

It is one thing to say Scripture is supreme and entirely another matter to claim it is supreme OVER the church. Where does Scripture teach it is supreme even over the church?

I cited Dei Verbum. Here’s the relevant passage, from chap. 2 (emphasis mine):

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

OK, it’s speaking specifically of the magisterium. But since we’re talking about doctrinal authority in this context, and since the magisterium is surely the supreme doctrinal authority within the Church, by definition, it is surely correct to say that Scripture (and the Tradition as a whole) has authority over the Church.

I think you’re reacting to Protestant critiques on their own ground. They treat the question of authority as if it were somehow a “contest” between Scripture and the Church, so you respond in kind. But that’s the wrong way to approach it in the first place, surely.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Catholics feel that the Church is the creator of scripture as well.

The Church is not the creator of the Word of God. Scripture is the Word of God (though not the exclusive carrier of the Word of God). Therefore, I think it’s incorrect, though tempting, to say that the Church “creates” Scripture. Members of the Church certainly wrote NT Scripture, and the Church created the canon of Scripture. But Scripture is God’s Word to the Church, and Vatican II clearly taught (as I quoted above) that the teaching authority of the Church serves the Word of God rather than the other way round.

Edwin

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’m !!! Next Tuesday evening at our** left-handed-men-who-wear-glasses service**, I plan to confront my pastor as to how he, being infallible, could have forgotten to tell me that the true Church was underground!!! ( Right after I eat some of Mrs. Hilda’s tuna casserole, which is really good. )

Jon

Jon,

I must admit my study of Protestant thought is incomplete. You know we get pigeon holed by our prejudice. I wake every morning. I put my right shoe on first then my left shoe. I do wear glasses. I noticed that I am right handed and probably neglected the left-handed-men-who-wear-glasses service in my study…thanks for the info

:hey_bud: This is funny stuff!!!

Thank you both, it is much needed to day.

 

[mackbrislawn]

The Church is not the creator of the Word of God. Scripture is the Word of God (though not the exclusive carrier of the Word of God). Therefore, I think it’s incorrect, though tempting, to say that the Church “creates” Scripture. Members of the Church certainly wrote NT Scripture, and the Church created the canon of Scripture. But Scripture is God’s Word to the Church, and Vatican II clearly taught (as I quoted above) that the teaching authority of the Church serves the Word of God rather than the other way round.

Edwin

Yes, God is the creator of the Word of God. The Church is the vehicle in which His word was enscripturated and the servant He uses to promote and serve His word, both oral and written. Of course, we believe that the Word of God is the word of God because of the teaching authority of the Church. If one doubts the teaching authority of the Church, then that casts into doubt the Word of God as being the Word of God, as well. Definitely, the purpose of the Church is to serve the Word of God, and scripture is one of the tools given to the Church in that endeavor.

The Word of God depends upon faith, but if we look at it outside of faith, historically, we see that certain men wrote scriptures within a context. That context later declared what these men wrote to be inspired by God.

 

[Contarini]

Yes, God is the creator of the Word of God. The Church is the vehicle in which His word was enscripturated and the servant He uses to promote and serve His word, both oral and written.

Right. So we agree that the Church is not the creator of the Word of God, and thus not the creator of Scripture inasmuch as Scripture is the Word of God?

As many Catholics do on this issue, you seem to be eliding the distinction between being and knowing.

Saying that we know Scripture to be the Word of God because of the Church’s testimony does not make the Church the creator of Scripture. It does not mean that the Church makes Scripture to be the Word of God.

Edwin

 

[AlwaysCurious]

Right. So we agree that the Church is not the creator of the Word of God, and thus not the creator of Scripture inasmuch as Scripture is the Word of God?

As many Catholics do on this issue, you seem to be eliding the distinction between being and knowing.

Saying that we know Scripture to be the Word of God because of the Church’s testimony does not make the Church the creator of Scripture. It does not mean that the Church makes Scripture to be the Word of God.

Edwin

Edwin, do you ever spend any time at the Called to Communion website? They seem to be pretty good and making all the philosophical distinctions.

 

[Nicea325]

I cited Dei Verbum. Here’s the relevant passage, from chap. 2 (emphasis mine):

OK, it’s speaking specifically of the magisterium. But since we’re talking about doctrinal authority in this context, and since the magisterium is surely the supreme doctrinal authority within the Church, by definition, it is surely correct to say that Scripture (and the Tradition as a whole) has authority over the Church.

I think you’re reacting to Protestant critiques on their own ground. They treat the question of authority as if it were somehow a “contest” between Scripture and the Church, so you respond in kind. But that’s the wrong way to approach it in the first place, surely.

Edwin

Okay,but how do you figure the Word of God refers strictly to Scripture in that statement? No where does the statement claim written Scripture is **supreme **over the church. It merely says the church serves it,whether written or oral,it says nothing about Scripture is supreme over the church.

I still would like to read where the early church taught Scripture is supreme over the church. And where does Scripture even remotely say it is supreme?

 

[Contarini]

Okay,but how do you figure the Word of God refers strictly to Scripture in that statement?

I don’t.

But it includes Scripture.

No where does the statement claim written Scripture is **supreme **over the church. It merely says the church serves it,whether written or oral,it says nothing about Scripture is supreme over the church.

Well, it depends on what we mean by “supreme,” I guess. I’m not sure what you think it means and how you are distinguishing supremacy from the “service” language used by the Council.

I still would like to read where the early church taught Scripture is supreme over the church.

I don’t think early Christians posed the question to themselves that way.

They certainly granted supreme authority to Scripture within the many authorities accepted by the Church.

I think the problem with this discussion is that it avoids the strength of the Protestant argument. The Protestant position isn’t really about Scripture per se, but about the Word of God. (For instance, all the classic Protestant writers on this subject recognize that the NT was oral tradition before it was written Scripture.) The strongest way of putting the Protestant case is like this:

1. The Word of God is supreme.
2. The Church confesses Scripture to be the Word of God.
3. Therefore, the Church confesses Scripture to be authoritative over itself (as we’ve seen, thus far Vatican II agrees).
4. There is no other authoritative, authentic source for the Word of God. The Word of God is transmitted and proclaimed in many ways, but all of them except for Scripture are human and fallible.

This last is the unorthodox claim. But I think what Catholics miss is that it’s a negative claim, and thus doesn’t need positive support. Its strength is on the alleged weakness of the evidence for any other authoritative manifestation of the Word of God.

Protestants will then quote patristic passages appealing to the material sufficiency of Scripture.

What Protestants miss, of course, is that these passages all presuppose the authority of the Church first to discern and secondly to interpret Scripture. As was, again, well put in Dei Verbum (a document whose profundity and beauty I appreciate more and more).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, do you ever spend any time at the Called to Communion website? They seem to be pretty good and making all the philosophical distinctions.

Yes, I visit them some. They have Reformed hangups, but I like a lot of what they write.

Edwin

 

[GaryTaylor]

I see both side’s, I believe the sticking point is “supreme” which becomes an improper term. For example we can quickly look at the CCC 101 foward. Chapter-2
Article- 3, Sacred Scripture. God Comes to Meet Man.

Which in essense is V-II.

I don’t see the issue exactly in this area. I see the problem today with placing more importance on specific Canons, then cut and pasting verse to fit a theology. St Pauls a perfect example. Yet when we view Scripture as a whole I become lost at grasping this significance. Here we find the teaching authority of the church to discern for example the Gospels etc. Or we enter into something different than what was intended, be it by a small degree or a complete break.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think the problem with this discussion is that it avoids the strength of the Protestant argument. The Protestant position isn’t really about Scripture per se, but about the Word of God. (For instance, all the classic Protestant writers on this subject recognize that the NT was oral tradition before it was written Scripture.) The strongest way of putting the Protestant case is like this:

1. The Word of God is supreme.
2. The Church confesses Scripture to be the Word of God.
3. Therefore, the Church confesses Scripture to be authoritative over itself (as we’ve seen, thus far Vatican II agrees).
4. There is no other authoritative, authentic source for the Word of God. The Word of God is transmitted and proclaimed in many ways, but all of them except for Scripture are human and fallible.

This last is the unorthodox claim. But I think what Catholics miss is that it’s a negative claim, and thus doesn’t need positive support. Its strength is on the alleged weakness of the evidence for any other authoritative manifestation of the Word of God.

Protestants will then quote patristic passages appealing to the material sufficiency of Scripture.

What Protestants miss, of course, is that these passages all presuppose the authority of the Church first to discern and secondly to interpret Scripture. As was, again, well put in Dei Verbum (a document whose profundity and beauty I appreciate more and more).

Edwin

I believe you make a great point.