Over 250 Protestant Leaders Sign 'Reforming Catholic Confession' on Essentials of Christian Faith

[tgGodsway]

All it means is that by faith we believe God used fallible people to do His infallible work. He gets all the glory for using the weakest link to accomplish such amazing work of collecting and organizing the word of God. We trust that even with fallible people, what we have today was and is, God’s choice and not mans.

The difference here is that in Catholicism, the credit goes to those who were specially endowed with works of infallibility in the process of collecting. But this approach cannot be found anywhere in both O,T. or New. Even the prophets of old, were never infallible, to the contrary, see Deut. 13

 

[adf417]

All it means is that by faith we believe God used fallible people to do His infallible work. He gets all the glory for using the weakest link to accomplish such amazing work of collecting and organizing the word of God. We trust that even with fallible people, what we have today was and is, God’s choice and not mans.

The difference here is that in Catholicism, the credit goes to those who were specially endowed with works of infallibility in the process of collecting. But this approach cannot be found anywhere in both O,T. or New. Even the prophets of old, were never infallible. On the contrary, see Deut. 13

Well the glaring difference is when we ALL say “Paul wrote the book of _______” with no credit to God, right?

We all agree that it is through the Holy Spirit these things come to be but not every time in casual conversation it is said so because it is a given. But for an official position see the CCC and you will find that EVERYTHING we have including the canon comes from God.

Peace!!!

 

[JonNC]

I can’t imagine a confessional Lutheran signing on to this. As a continuing Anglican who was a confessional Lutheran, I find it almost offensive.

Maybe not “almost”

 

[CatholicGearSolid]

250 protestant leaders united, huh?

That’s cute.

 

[rcwitness]

Please show me where the Catholic Church calls anyone, but Jesus, infallible!

The pope, and also the college of Bishops, can Teach infallibly. That is very different than sying the Pope and Bishops are infallible people.

So all you are saying, is exactly what we profess; that God uses fallible men to declare with infallible certainty matters of faith and morals. Therefore we can have certain confidence that each book in the Bible belongs there. Where as you must admit that any given book in your bible could be mistakenly placed there by men.

And no, we do not have to give any man God’s glory. We can give faithful men honor, and double honor, for working, preaching, and upholding the Gospel, Traditions, and Teachings of the Apostles.

 

[rcwitness]

Are u saying you do not like some parts of this statement, and your church would not sign onto it, as a whole?

 

[JonNC]

Are u saying you do not like some parts of this statement, and your church would not sign onto it, as a whole?

I’m saying my personal opinion, and I would hope that my communion would not sign on, but the would be up to Bishop Grundorf.

 

[tgGodsway]

okay… it doesn’t make a difference to me. You can believe that as far as I’m concerned.

Blessings to you,

 

[rcwitness]

So which Council pronounced your canon of Scripture? Even if you think it could be a wrong pronouncement, im asking what Council told you what is in your Bible is all of Scripture, no more no less?

 

[tgGodsway]

You might be right on this rcwitness, I don’t know. From all I have read, the early councils argued over which book should be, and which book should not be, all the way into the fourth century. But from what I’m told they were all led by the Spirit of God to make infallible choices.

But my question is: were they much like the pope when sitting on his St. Peter’s chair, ready to decree a matter, “infallibly?”

Secondly, aren’t we really talking about the apocryphal books here?

 

[tgGodsway]

If you want a council. If this is what matters to you. How about the Westminister confession of faith? I know! anything on the quote “Protestant side” is not even recognized as inspired by God. But I’m good with that.

 

[rcwitness]

Ok, but that is not a council, right? Or at least, ecumenical. Not to mention a long, long time into the age of the Church!

Im saying, if God wanted there to be a Bible which is not inter-reliant on Tradition and Church Teaching, in order to be our rule of faith, then how do we, as individuals or a Church, have assurance the writings are His genuine Scripture?

 

[tgGodsway]

The only bridge that crosses over to that kind of definite position, is the bridge of faith. Everything we ingest is ingested by faith. I trust that my Lord and savior has led me to the right inner circle of apostolic witnesses.

However, there is another witness. It is the witness of the Holy Spirit in me who confirms, comforts, and encourages me that I am in the truth. When I stray, He faces off with me to deal with me. It is a comfort to know that His presence confirms the written word of God.
At least this is my experience.
Blessings,

 

[tgGodsway]

Let me add something here. It is the Holy Spirit who opens the scriptures to us. Without Him, even correct doctrine will not make any sense. I do not place tradition on equal par with scripture because of it’s history of fallibility. We humans, left to ourselves are prone to fall away and get it wrong. Only as the Spirit of the Lord leads us can we find the truth of any matter.

 

[tgGodsway]

I’m not sure what you said.

If God would choose fallible men to write the scriptures why wouldn’t he use fallible men to collect them into the canon? It seems to me once you submit to the fact that God did use fallible men to do the writing the rest is the easy part.

I agree he used fallible men to both parts. The process was fallible because the men behind it were also fallible. Yet God, in all His wisdom used such weak and fallible people to collect and combine these books and call it the word of God. This sifting process (of various writings and books) stopped in the fourth century, but God, obviously was not done. In the sixteenth century and through the leadership of the Holy Spirit, the process to make adjustments to the collected books continued until they were satisfied with what they arrived at. The apocryphal books were the first books deemed not of God, for many reasons.

 

[rcwitness]

You cannot say the process of declaring the Canon was fallible and at the same time say that God guided us to be able to rely on His Written Word. Its a contradiction.

Protestants try desperately to avoid this dilemma.

Its unrealistic to imagine a Pope just sitting on a throne giving out orders, as if thats wat the Pope was able to do. The bishop of Rome sits on a seat of honor among Bishops, in regard to Universal Teaching. So if the Bishops of the world wish to settle a matter Universally, then the Bishop of Rome needs to affirm. It may take alot of convincing. It may not happen for many Popes.

What puzzles me, is that Protestants expect Scripture to be the supreme rule of faith, and all tradition and Church judgment subject to failure, but admit that an ecumenical council has NEVER confirmed what is to be trusted as Scripture!

This would be very problematic for me to accept.

And the attempt to place Scripture above Sacred Tradition and Church Teaching does not diminish the veneration we hold Scripture with. It just means Protestants diminish what made it possible to have your our trusty Bible. And i agree that God’s sovereignty provides us with Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium!

 

[adf417]

I’m not sure what you said.

adf417:

If God would choose fallible men to write the scriptures why wouldn’t he use fallible men to collect them into the canon? It seems to me once you submit to the fact that God did use fallible men to do the writing the rest is the easy part.

I agree he used fallible men to both parts. The process was fallible because the men behind it were also fallible. Yet God, in all His wisdom used such weak and fallible people to collect and combine these books and call it the word of God. This sifting process (of various writings and books) stopped in the fourth century, but God, obviously was not done. In the sixteenth century and through the leadership of the Holy Spirit, the process to make adjustments to the collected books continued until they were satisfied with what they arrived at. The apocryphal books were the first books deemed not of God, for many reasons.

Is God done now? Who gets to decide when He is done? The JWs agree with your point here as a mater of fact they agree so much they feel they can change the wording to fit their own theology because they know better what the words should say. Based on your paradigm that God wasn’t done, they are just as right as you.

Peace!!!

 

[Debbie_Kono]

I agree he used fallible men to both parts. The process was fallible because the men behind it were also fallible. Yet God, in all His wisdom used such weak and fallible people to collect and combine these books and call it the word of God. This sifting process (of various writings and books) stopped in the fourth century, but God, obviously was not done. In the sixteenth century and through the leadership of the Holy Spirit, the process to make adjustments to the collected books continued until they were satisfied with what they arrived at. The apocryphal books were the first books deemed not of God, for many reasons.

Obviously what you say here is fallible.

 

[fredystairs]

This sifting process (of various writings and books) stopped in the fourth century, but God, obviously was not done. In the sixteenth century and through the leadership of the Holy Spirit, the process to make adjustments to the collected books continued until they were satisfied with what they arrived at. The apocryphal books were the first books deemed not of God, for many reasons.

First, I agree with your dating - the Canon of Scripture was formed in the late Fourth Century at two councils of Hippo and Carthage. What they declared as Scripture were the same books that are found in the Catholic Bible.

Now according to what you wrote above, are you saying is that the Holy Spirit allowed the Church to remain in error about the Canon of Scripture for 11 centuries, from the end of the Fourth Century to the Sixteenth Century? Because if there was no effort to change the Canon of Scripture until the reformers came on the scene, that is the conclusion that I must draw, that the Holy Spirit, on this matter at least, was silent for that period.

Lastly, what were the reasons the apocryphal books were deemed not of God?

Blessings.

 

[JonNC]

First, I agree with your dating - the Canon of Scripture was formed in the late Fourth Century at two councils of Hippo and Carthage. What they declared as Scripture were the same books that are found in the Catholic Bible.

Hippo and Carthage were local synods, not ecumenical councils. During this time and since, eastern bishops held to differing canons.

Now according to what you wrote above, are you saying is that the Holy Spirit allowed the Church to remain in error about the Canon of Scripture for 11 centuries, from the end of the Fourth Century to the Sixteenth Century? Because if there was no effort to change the Canon of Scripture until the reformers came on the scene, that is the conclusion that I must draw, that the Holy Spirit, on this matter at least, was silent for that period.

The Church universal has never had universal agreement on the canon of scripture, and it hasn’t limited the Spirit’s ability to guide the Church. Under your argument here, there are numerous fathers of the Church who were not guided by the Spirit, Athanasius notable among them. There were numerous individuals and patriarchates who held to different canons long before the Reformation era.

Lastly, what were the reasons the apocryphal books were deemed not of God?

Luther gives his opinions in his commentaries on the DC books. Others have their reasons