Protestant Canon

[steido01]

"However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these community [that resulted from such separation’ and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers… All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason **are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.

" --C.C.C. # 818

So, no, you’re not even a material heretic.

First, you have to be Catholic, then you have to espouse heresy, then you are a heretic.

Isn’t “the sin of separation” Schism, not Heresy? I’m not certain this quote gives us the entire picture. How does acknowledging me to be a Christian make me any less heretical, as far as Rome is concerned?

Your view seems to be at odds with what I’ve been taught by other Roman Catholics both here on CAF, and in person (including a favorite priest, who explained it remarkably gently). Most have explained it similar to this:
the-supplement.blogspot.com/2007/10/formal-vs-material-heresy.html

I am asking sincerely - are they mistaken?

 

[PRmerger]

Isn’t “the sin of separation” Schism, not Heresy? I’m not certain this quote gives us the entire picture. How does acknowledging me to be a Christian make me any less heretical, as far as Rome is concerned?

Your view seems to be at odds with what I’ve been taught by other Roman Catholics both here on CAF, and in person (including a favorite priest, who explained it remarkably gently). Most have explained it similar to this:
the-supplement.blogspot.com/2007/10/formal-vs-material-heresy.html

I am asking sincerely - are they mistaken?

So I have to ask: did you embrace Catholicism and then reject it?

 

[Novocastrian]

I think that maybe we need to return to the focus on the Protestant canon, or accurately, the Protestant canons, meaning plural. After all, some of the denominations have seen fit to set the canon and some have not. We see this same lack of agreement within Protestantism on literally every issue, budget this one really is telling. All of these Sola Scriptura denominations cannot even agree on whether they should or should not close the canon. It’s no wonder that they can’t agree about anything else (except of course their opposition to the Church).

This seems like both a cheap and an inaccurate shot. You make it sound as if no two Protestant Churches can agree on anything at all, which is patently not the case. For example, an orthodox Anglican and an orthodox Lutheran will have the same Christology, because together we have received from the ancient Catholic Church the Christological definitions of, e.g., Cyril and Chalcedon.

If, however, you mean that there is no single issue on which all Protestants can agree, well, perhaps you’re right; human beings are messy. But exactly the same point can be made against Christianity in general. Do you want to acknowledge that as a problem with human beings, or as a problem with Christianity in general? I don’t think you can have it both ways.

“It was particularly within the canon that Luther practiced theological criticism of its individual parts. The standard of this criticism is the same as his principal of interpretation, that is, Christ: the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone. (WA 12, 260)”, Paul Althaus, “The Theology of Martin Luther”, pg. 82

Here the celebrated Lutheran Theologian Paul Althaus makes the exact same point that I have been making. In one sentence Althaus mentions Luther’s ‘criticism’ of the canon, ties it to his ‘principal of interpretation’, and for the trifecta, throws in that Luther’s concept of: “Christ: the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone”. Bada Bing – Bada Boom, a Lutheran Theologian and I agree on something!

Now, if anyone wants to provide an ‘alternative understanding’ of this quote, it will require an actual dealing with the actual words of Althaus, and must include (in order to be either credible or compelling), the specifics in regards to what Althaus maybe meant to say, but like James according to Luther, was “unequal to the task”.

Most Christians would think of the idea of “theological criticism of its individual parts” (of the canon) as being some kind of ultra-liberal blasphemous practice whereby the individual places themselves or their own personal judgment above that of Holy Scripture. And yet, this is exactly what the Lutheran church has done, of course following Luther who did the exact same thing.

I’m not sure that most Christians would agree with you. Criticism isn’t necessarily a negative thing. Thinking critically about sacred Scripture is only blasphemous if one sets oneself up as judge rather than disciple - both can be engaged in criticism! I would also imagine that most people, being honest with themselves, would recognise that they engage in a bit of both…

Secondly, you seem to have an issue with the idea of a theological first principle through which to interpret scripture. I’d suggest that while you’d want to avoid doing so in Luther’s way specifically, it is very Catholic to behave in such a way in general. The Church has always been willing to read the whole Bible through the lens of Christ; one does not, for example, take the Pentateuch simply at face value. We read it knowing that Christ is the τελος of the Law, and form our opinions accordingly.

 

[Novocastrian]

“This is what Luther means when he says that the standard is ‘that which is apostolic.’……An apostle shows that he is an apostle by clearly and purely preaching Christ as Savior.” Althaus, pg/ 82. In other words, an Apostle is an Apostle if they teach Luther’s Salvation by Faith Alone. James did not and so he was deemed by Luther to NOT be an Apostle. Of course we know now that James WAS written by the Apostle James, so at the very least, this fact makes Luther look like a very poor judge of Scripture.

I wouldn’t put the likelihood of James’s authorship in such certain terms. I’d be deeply interested to see anything that would convince me as a historian otherwise.

Secondly, surely this makes Luther a poor historian, rather than a poor judge of Scripture per se? After all, he’s careful, as Jon has pointed out, to make a judgement about the author of James, not to exclude the epistle or impugn its orthodoxy.

Althaus continues:

“Since apostolic authority manifests itself in the gospel of the apostles, the church recognizes the authority of Scripture as being based not on the person of the apostles but on the word of God or the gospel which bears witness to itself. The apostolic character of a New Testament author manifests itself in the content of his writing and in the clarity of his witness to Christ. Luther now applies this standard or criterion to the canonical books. ‘All genuine books agree in preaching Christ. He allows the canon to stand as it was established by the ancient church. But he makes distinctions within the canon. He evaluates the books according to the norm of their apostolic content. ‘This is the true test of all books, when we see whether or not they preach Christ. For all Scriptures show us Christ (Rom 3:21) and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ (I Cor. 2:2)/ Whatever does not teach Christ is certainly not apostolic even though St. Peter or St. Paul teaches it. …] If this characteristic is missing or inadequate in any of the canonical writings, as it is, for example in James, then the author cannot be an apostle. For Luther, ‘preaching’ Christ means proclaiming that the crucified and risen Christ is the Savior and that the salvation he brings is received through faith alone. Luther is so certain of this, as well as of the interpretation of Scripture, that he did not think of himself as approaching the canon with an arbitrary and autonomously chosen criteria but with the standard which Scripture itself offers in it on-going central proclamation (‘St. Paul and all the evangelists’). Luther obtained this standard from nowhere else than Scripture. To that extent it is the Scripture itself that criticizes the canon.” Althaus, pg. 82-3

This is a classic case of circular thinking. How can Scripture criticize the canon when Scripture is not closed because the canon is not closed. It’s no wonder that Protestantism has such complete lack of doctrinal certainty. What a mess!

First off, circularity is demonstrable. Why don’t you show us, at least semi-formally, why this is circular reasoning? If you can’t, then it’s not…

Second, it shows why what we’ve both written immediately above about the authorship of James is missing the point (though I’ll leave it in, because it is in itself an interesting debate!); for Luther apostolicity is not about authorship so much as it is about function. For Luther, the function of an Apostle is to proclaim the Gospel; anything which does not properly do so cannot be called apostolic. So James the Apostle may have written the Epistle which bears his name, but, according to Luther, he does not do so properly qua Apostle.

Thirdly, it has always been a principle of orthodox Christianity that the Scriptures be interpreted according to the *regula fidei inherited from the Apostles; this is the sense in which orthodox Protestants are willing to accept an authoritative tradition. Where we disagree with you is insofar as we see the regula fidei *itself as a distillation of Scripture. This certainly seems to be the case in the early written formulations thereof which survive in the Church, e.g. that in Tertullian’s Adversus Praxean. It does not go beyond Scripture, but provides a condensed summary of the salvation-history Scripture contains. What you’re really objecting to is a perceived bias in Luther’s reception of the *regula fidei *which makes him lean too far in thinking that the faith in the grace of God is the rule’s absolute centre of gravity.

This is of course not to mention something that Lutherans (not even Althaus) don’t make a big deal out of (or even a miniscule deal), - that Luther was DEAD WRONG about James not being an Apostle. …] Luther’s ‘answer’ – James had to be downgraded to a non-Apostolic writing:

Dealt with this already, see above.

“Therefore I do not want to have him in my Bible.”

Luther had no choice but to defend Salvation by Faith Alone, which was a radical version of Salvation, and had NEVER been taught as such in the then 1500 year history of Christendom.

It’s no wonder that so many Lutheran Theologians are converting to Catholicism.

Obviously we’re going to disagree about sola fide, for a variety of reasons.

It’s your last sentence which is so galling. Just think of the principle behind what you’re saying - even assuming your assertion about so many Lutheran theologians is true! Do you really want to accept the principle that the conversion of many theologians betrays a serious doctrinal insufficiency in the Church that they’re leaving?

Because if you do, then the Reformation poses a far greater problem for Roman Catholicism than the modern era does for Lutheranism.

 

[steido01]

So I have to ask: did you embrace Catholicism and then reject it?

As a Lutheran, my answer would be that I’ve always been catholic ; but to your point, I’ve never professed anything other than Confessional Lutheranism. Which technically classifies me a material heretic according to EWTN and most Roman Catholics apologists that I’ve ever read, regardless of whether the term is avoided in modern ecumenical dialogue for more inviting language.

I’d be happy to take this to a new thread; I don’t care for derailments.

 

[TertiumQuid]

All of these Sola Scriptura denominations cannot even agree on whether they should or should not close the canon.

According to Gary Michuta, Trent “passed over in silence” on determining whether the book of Esdras was canonical or not. If Michuta is correct, the Catholic canon may not be closed.

“It was particularly within the canon that Luther practiced theological criticism of its individual parts. The standard of this criticism is the same as his principal of interpretation, that is, Christ: the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone. (WA 12, 260)”, Paul Althaus, “The Theology of Martin Luther”, pg. 82Here the celebrated Lutheran Theologian Paul Althaus makes the exact same point that I have been making. In one sentence Althaus mentions Luther’s ‘criticism’ of the canon, ties it to his ‘principal of interpretation’, and for the trifecta, throws in that Luther’s concept of: “Christ: the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone”. Bada Bing – Bada Boom, a Lutheran Theologian and I agree on something!Now, if anyone wants to provide an ‘alternative understanding’ of this quote, it will require an actual dealing with the actual words of Althaus, and must include (in order to be either credible or compelling), the specifics in regards to what Althaus maybe meant to say, but like James according to Luther, was “unequal to the task”.

Despite his ties to the Nazi party Althaus has produced one of the best systematic treatments of Luther’s theology ever put together (He later went through denazification). Here’s what Althaus says:

It was particularly within the canon that Luther practiced theological criticism of its individual parts. The standard of this criticism is the same as his principle of interpretation, that is, Christ: the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone. This is what Luther means when he says that the standard is “that which is apostolic.” Luther’s concept of apostolicity is based not only on a historical factor, that is, that Christ himself called and sent out a group of witnesses. Rather, it is determined by the content of a book. An apostle shows that he is an apostle by clearly and purely preaching Christ as Savior. “Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the suffering, resurrection, and office of Christ.” This shows that an apostle is inspired by the Holy Spirit; and this gives him his authority and infallibility. Since apostolic authority manifests itself in the gospel of the apostles, the church recognizes the authority of the Scripture as being based not on the person of the apostles but on the word of God or the gospel which bears witness to itself. The apostolic character of a New Testament author manifests itself in the content of his writing and in the clarity of his witness to Christ.”

I don’t see how what Althaus is describing should come across as radical to Catholics. Don’t Catholics believe that an apostle shows his pedigree by preaching Christ?

 

[TertiumQuid]

It’s your last sentence which is so galling. Just think of the principle behind what you’re saying - even assuming your assertion about so many Lutheran theologians is true! Do you really want to accept the principle that the conversion of many theologians betrays a serious doctrinal insufficiency in the Church that they’re leaving? Because if you do, then the Reformation poses a far greater problem for Roman Catholicism than the modern era does for Lutheranism.

This is an interesting argument, and I pulled it out so it won’t be missed. I’m interested to see what others think on this point. It’s a simple argument that takes the standard being used to explain why some are converting to Catholicism now and applies that same standard to why some people left the Catholic church during the Reformation period.

 

[PRmerger]

This is an interesting argument, and I pulled it out so it won’t be missed. I’m interested to see what others think on this point. It’s a simple argument that takes the standard being used to explain why some are converting to Catholicism now and applies that same standard to why some people left the Catholic church during the Reformation period.

I don’t think the argument that was being presented by Topper was that Lutheran theologians leaving Lutheranism is proof that Lutheranism is false.

Rather, I think what was being argued, quite astutely, was “It’s no wonder that Lutheran theologians are converting to Catholicism, after they study the dogma of Sola Fide–it was something that was never taught for 1500 years, nor can it be found in the Scriptures. It makes sense that they are converting.”

 

[PRmerger]

As a Lutheran, my answer would be that I’ve always been catholic ;

sigh. Yep. Everyone wants to be Catholic.

but to your point, I’ve never professed anything other than Confessional Lutheranism. Which technically classifies me a material heretic

steido, we are on a virtual discussion forum. As such I would not be in a position to determine whether or not you are a heretic. I know not how much of Catholicism and the faith given once for all you once embraced, and now reject. For all I know, you are merely role playing here, and you don’t even believe a single word you have written in these threads, but are simply writing to entertain yourself.

I am not in the position to be the Grand Inquisitor and declare you to be a heretic, material or not.

 

[Topper17]

I recommend post 387. If that doesn’t interest you, then by all means, keep hammering away. These monologues are certain to convert us heretics.

As long as we are recommending previous posts, I am recommending that you look at post 394 and then respond to it.

 

[PRmerger]

If, however, you mean that there is no single issue on which all Protestants can agree, well, perhaps you’re right; human beings are messy.

Annnndddd that is why we need an ultimate authority, a final arbiter, a pillar and foundation of truth.

All of the Protestants who reject this pillar end up with tens of thousands of denominations, which is an obscenity. An obscenity.

In just 500 years, thanks to the Protestant Reformation mantra of “Authority? We don’t need no authority to tell us what the Bible means!” there has been such splintering and fracturing of doctrine to the tune of tens of thousands of beliefs–all using the Bible to support their views.

 

[PRmerger]

Isn’t “the sin of separation” Schism, not Heresy?

Both.

I’m not certain this quote gives us the entire picture. How does acknowledging me to be a Christian make me any less heretical, as far as Rome is concerned?

Because Rome cannot know what you first embraced and have now rejected.

Your view seems to be at odds with what I’ve been taught by other Roman Catholics both here on CAF, and in person (including a favorite priest, who explained it remarkably gently). Most have explained it similar to this:
the-supplement.blogspot.com/2007/10/formal-vs-material-heresy.html

I am asking sincerely - are they mistaken?

They are not mistaken. The error you make is in ascribing to yourself a label we have not given to you.

You may be a material heretic (in which case, I would not be so blithe about it if I were you), or you may just be someone who just wasn’t fed the Faith with nourishing truth.

 

[Novocastrian]

Annnndddd that is why we need an ultimate authority, a final arbiter, a pillar and foundation of truth.

All of the Protestants who reject this pillar end up with tens of thousands of denominations, which is an obscenity. An obscenity.

In just 500 years, thanks to the Protestant Reformation mantra of “Authority? We don’t need no authority to tell us what the Bible means!” there has been such splintering and fracturing of doctrine to the tune of tens of thousands of beliefs–all using the Bible to support their views.

I agree. A Church sticking to the regula fidei. Unfortunately, Rome goes way beyond this, and has lost a significant degree of its authority.

I don’t believe for one minute that you seriously think that Protestants - apart from the extreme fringes - actually believe that there is no such thing as the Church’s authority to expound and interpret scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I am saying you are denying historical fact about what Josephus wrote.

I am not denying that Josephus wrote it. (I have no idea if he truly did or if he didn’t, actually. And neither do you, BTW)

I am merely saying that he was writing his opinion. And no one ought to take his word on it as representing all of Judaism.

Just like the writings of the SDA regarding Jesus being the Archangel Michael ought not be taken as representing all of Christendom.

It is universally accepted by the Jewish people what is Hebrew canon. And God DOES declare the Jews the oracles of the OT.

Were the Sadduccess correct then when they declared only the first 5 books of the Torah to be the Word of God?

Or were the Pharisees correct?

 

[PRmerger]

I agree. A Church sticking to the regula fidei. Unfortunately, Rome goes way beyond this, and has lost a significant degree of its authority.

Who has the authority to declare that Rome has gone way beyond this?

I don’t believe for one minute that you seriously think that Protestants - apart from the extreme fringes - actually believe that there is no such thing as the Church’s authority to expound and interpret scripture.

And who has the authority to say when a group is a member of an “extreme fringe”?

 

[PRmerger]

I agree. A Church sticking to the regula fidei.

Incidentally, since you claim that you defer to the authority of your church (which you believe is fallible and going to be wrong at some point), can you name a time when your church exercised the authority given by Jesus and declared something universally bound or loosed here on earth and thereby was bound and loosed in heaven?

 

[benjohnson]

Can you name a time when your church exercised the authority given by Jesus and declared something universally bound or loosed here on earth and thereby was bound and loosed in heaven?

My church moved the potluck to February. Does that count?

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11636040]I think that maybe we need to return to the focus on the Protestant canon, or accurately, the Protestant canons, meaning plural. After all, some of the denominations have seen fit to set the canon and some have not. We see this same lack of agreement within Protestantism on literally every issue, budget this one really is telling.

There have always been canons of scripture (plural), even before the Reformation, so this should not come as a surprise to anyone. I’m no fan of the “essentials” argument, but to say that “We see this same lack of agreement within Protestantism on literally every issue,” seems to state the obvious. Protestantism isn’t now, and never was a singular entity. So, of course there are disagreements. And Rome agrees with parts and disagrees with parts of other communions as well.

All of these Sola Scriptura denominations cannot even agree on whether they should or should not close the canon. It’s no wonder that they can’t agree about anything else (except of course their opposition to the Church).

And communions that hold to Tradition and Scripture have divisions, as well, lasting 500 years longer.

“It was particularly **within the canon **that Luther practiced theological criticism of its individual parts. The standard of this criticism is the same as his principal of interpretation, that is, Christ: the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone. (WA 12, 260)”, Paul Althaus, “The Theology of Martin Luther”, pg. 82

Here the celebrated Lutheran Theologian Paul Althaus makes the exact same point that I have been making. In one sentence Althaus mentions Luther’s ‘criticism’ of the canon, ties it to his ‘principal of interpretation’, and for the trifecta, throws in that Luther’s concept of: “Christ: the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone”. Bada Bing – Bada Boom, a Lutheran Theologian and I agree on something!

Well, I’m pleased that you agree with Althaus that Luther was working within the canon, but I don’t see what the big deal is. That Luther believed that, as Paul says, we are justified by faith and not by works is of no surprise to anyone. Further, I think I’ve already mentioned that Luther’s initial understanding of the relationship of James and Paul was wrong.

Now, if anyone wants to provide an ‘alternative understanding’ of this quote, it will require an actual dealing with the actual words of Althaus, and must include (in order to be either credible or compelling), the specifics in regards to what Althaus maybe meant to say, but like James according to Luther, was “unequal to the task”.

Not sure what you are looking for.

Most Christians would think of the idea of “theological criticism of its individual parts” (of the canon) as being some kind of ultra-liberal blasphemous practice whereby the individual places themselves or their own personal judgment above that of Holy Scripture. And yet, this is exactly what the Lutheran church has done, of course following Luther who did the exact same thing.

Why? Christians have done that within the canon for centuries. Erasmus was not blasphemous, neither was Cajetan, or Jerome, or Eusebius, or any others who criticized individual books of scripture.
Now, of course, you are welcome to your interpretation and bias that Luther was blasphemous, and you’ve repeated it here often. You have the freedom to say so as often as you like. Not a single Luther here or elsewhere, I suspect, will be moved beyond mild irritation that you say so.

Althaus continues. “This is what Luther means when he says that the standard is ‘that which is apostolic.’……An apostle shows that he is an apostle by clearly and purely preaching Christ as Savior.” Althaus, pg/ 82. In other words, an Apostle is an Apostle if they teach Luther’s Salvation by Faith Alone. James did not and so he was deemed by Luther to NOT be an Apostle. Of course we know now that James WAS written by the Apostle James, so at the very least, this fact makes Luther look like a very poor judge of Scripture.

Just like you are welcome to your anti-Luther bias, Luther was welcome to his opinions. As is proof by the continued acceptance of James as canonical by Lutheranism, his opinion did not hold sway.

continued

 

[JonNC]

Althaus continues:

“Since apostolic authority manifests itself in the gospel of the apostles, the church recognizes the authority of Scripture as being based not on the person of the apostles but on the word of God or the gospel which bears witness to itself. The apostolic character of a New Testament author manifests itself in the content of his writing and in the clarity of his witness to Christ. Luther now applies this standard or criterion to the canonical books. ‘All genuine books agree in preaching Christ. He allows the canon to stand as it was established by the ancient church. But he makes distinctions within the canon. He evaluates the books according to the norm of their apostolic content. ‘This is the true test of all books, when we see whether or not they preach Christ. For all Scriptures show us Christ (Rom 3:21) and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ (I Cor. 2:2)/ Whatever does not teach Christ is certainly not apostolic even though St. Peter or St. Paul teaches it. Again whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic even though Judas, Ananias, Pilate, or Herod were doing it.’ If this characteristic is missing or inadequate in any of the canonical writings, as it is, for example in James, then the author cannot be an apostle. For Luther, ‘preaching’ Christ means proclaiming that the crucified and risen Christ is the Savior and that the salvation he brings is received through faith alone. Luther is so certain of this, as well as of the interpretation of Scripture, that he did not think of himself as approaching the canon with an arbitrary and autonomously chosen criteria but with the standard which Scripture itself offers in it on-going central proclamation (‘St. Paul and all the evangelists’). Luther obtained this standard from nowhere else than Scripture. To that extent it is the Scripture itself that criticizes the canon.” Althaus, pg. 82-3

Just thought I’d point this out.

This is a classic case of circular thinking. How can Scripture criticize the canon when Scripture is not closed because the canon is not closed. It’s no wonder that Protestantism has such complete lack of doctrinal certainty. What a mess!

What does this have to do with Protestantism? How can you make such a broad-brushed statement about such a wide variety of communions? Have you looked into them to see if they each lack doctrinal certainty?
I won’t speak for any other communion, as you so cavalierly do, but as for the LCMS. our doctrine is rather certain.

It’s no wonder that so many Lutheran Theologians are converting to Catholicism.

I still haven’t figured your connection to the doctrine of Justification, since convergence between Lutheranism and Catholicism is closer now than in 500 years on the doctrine. But, ok, if that’s how you want to see it.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

The Catholic Church came to recognize the Bible’s special authority even though nowhere in the Old testament is a book said to be inspired by God. What the Old Testament contains is Israel’s belief that God revealed Himself in history and that history was guided by God’s Spirit. From this belief it was easily deduced that the same Spirit of God was with the sacred authors when they wrote their books. it was the presence of God’s Spirit that gave Scripture its authoritative character.
The books of the Old and new testaments the Catholic Church holds to be sacred and canonical, not because, having been carefully composed by mere human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, not merely because they contain revelation with no admixture of error, but because having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, They Have God For Their Author and have been delivered as such to the Catholic Church.
At the Council of Florence the books were considered inspired, this meant that the Old Testament books were somehow inspired just as those books of the New testament are thought to be inspired, meaning that they have God for their author. Although some were considered inspired from the very beginning of the Church other books were not sure that they were inspired so were contested, by the Council of Florence all were considered inspired. The Council of Trent not only affirmed that the 73 books are in fact inspired and have God as the author but decided that were also canonical or the rule of what the Church holds to be believed.