Protestant Canon

[Topper17]

Topper

Your comments are welcome. The issue of papal infallibility is a concern for Lutherans. The Dialogue points out that Lutherans accept the papacy as first among equal pontiffs and that Luther merely wanted Pope Leo to address the abuses and had no plan to leave the Catholic Church. Papal infallibility is a sticking point for Orthodox and Anglicans as well as Lutherans since it became dogma in 1869.

Thanks for your response EV,

But I spent a fair amount of time writing out my position and asking you a question. I redirect you to those comments and, respectfully ask that you take a position on your vs, Luther’s belief on Salvational ‘requirements’. You see, I think that we CAN make some progress towards communion IF, and ONLY IF, we deal with the really sticky issues. With that said, the blue below is a repost from my last post:

(EV) I believe that your statement that “’church dividing’ issues are essentially gone”, is massively ‘optimistic’, that is unless Lutherans have decided to sign on to papal infallibility and the authority of Ecumenical Councils to determine dogma (for starters). It seems that you believe that Lutherans and Catholic now agree on the doctrine of Salvation. In the past I have seen (mostly liberals of both our communions) focus on the ‘nice sounding’ phrases which would lead people to believe that there is meaningful agreement on the tough issues.

On the other hand it appears that there has been progress, and for that Praise God. As an example, and in the context of your comment, there has been some progress on Salvation, however, a great deal still divides us. As the Akin article points out, we might be working towards becoming better able to define terms (such as ‘faith’) in a common manner. However, on issue of the requirements for Salvation, we are far apart.

Jimmy Akin puts this in perspective:

“We may be put the relationship between the two concepts (Protestant and Catholic belief on Salvation) as follows:

Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope = Catholic idea of charity”

I think this is an excellent synopsis of the situation. The Protestant version of Salvation is correct, as far as it goes, but it doesn’t ‘go far enough’. In other words, it is incomplete, and because it is incomplete, it is not correct. Now – this is not to say that some Protestants don’t agree with the Catholic version of Salvation, because I think some do. If I remember, Dave Armstrong once wrote that there at least 17 different competing Protestant versions of Salvation. What a mess!

However, if you are one of those who actually agree with the Catholic teaching on salvation, then you are opposed to Luther’s version. So EV, this is ‘pick your poison’ time, because you can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim that Protestants and Catholics agree on Salvation, AND that they also agree with Luther, because it is very clear that Luther did not agree with anybody previous to himself on salvation. His radical Salvation by Faith Alone had never been taught in previous Christian history, and if you need proof of that fact, we have Luther himself as evidence. He never spent any time doing anything but refuting the Church on the issue, and never (as was his habit), ever backed up one little bit trying to find common ground or claiming that he had been ‘misunderstood’.

If you want to admit that you believe differently than Luther, you can of course claim that he was ‘right for the wrong reasons’ or maybe ‘wrong for the right reasons’, or maybe even ‘wrong for the wrong reasons’. But unless you agree with him, then you will have to admit that the Rebellion that he fostered was done for the purpose of promoting a doctrine which you have found to be false. Furthermore, it was on the basis of his belief in Salvation that Luther criticized the canon, so if you disagree with his version of Salvation, then you must agree that his criticism of the canon was wrong/misplaced/errant (insert a term).

So again, pick your poison. Which way is it?

I would appreciate your comments and God Bless You, Topper

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Thanks for your response EV,

But I spent a fair amount of time writing out my position and asking you a question. I redirect you to those comments and, respectfully ask that you take a position on your vs, Luther’s belief on Salvational ‘requirements’. You see, I think that we CAN make some progress towards communion IF, and ONLY IF, we deal with the really sticky issues. With that said, the blue below is a repost from my last post:

(EV) I believe that your statement that “’church dividing’ issues are essentially gone”, is massively ‘optimistic’, that is unless Lutherans have decided to sign on to papal infallibility and the authority of Ecumenical Councils to determine dogma (for starters). It seems that you believe that Lutherans and Catholic now agree on the doctrine of Salvation. In the past I have seen (mostly liberals of both our communions) focus on the ‘nice sounding’ phrases which would lead people to believe that there is meaningful agreement on the tough issues.

On the other hand it appears that there has been progress, and for that Praise God. As an example, and in the context of your comment, there has been some progress on Salvation, however, a great deal still divides us. As the Akin article points out, we might be working towards becoming better able to define terms (such as ‘faith’) in a common manner. However, on issue of the requirements for Salvation, we are far apart.

Jimmy Akin puts this in perspective:

“We may be put the relationship between the two concepts (Protestant and Catholic belief on Salvation) as follows:

Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope = Catholic idea of charity”

I think this is an excellent synopsis of the situation. The Protestant version of Salvation is correct, as far as it goes, but it doesn’t ‘go far enough’. In other words, it is incomplete, and because it is incomplete, it is not correct. Now – this is not to say that some Protestants don’t agree with the Catholic version of Salvation, because I think some do. If I remember, Dave Armstrong once wrote that there at least 17 different competing Protestant versions of Salvation. What a mess!

However, if you are one of those who actually agree with the Catholic teaching on salvation, then you are opposed to Luther’s version. So EV, this is ‘pick your poison’ time, because you can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim that Protestants and Catholics agree on Salvation, AND that they also agree with Luther, because it is very clear that Luther did not agree with anybody previous to himself on salvation. His radical Salvation by Faith Alone had never been taught in previous Christian history, and if you need proof of that fact, we have Luther himself as evidence. He never spent any time doing anything but refuting the Church on the issue, and never (as was his habit), ever backed up one little bit trying to find common ground or claiming that he had been ‘misunderstood’.

If you want to admit that you believe differently than Luther, you can of course claim that he was ‘right for the wrong reasons’ or maybe ‘wrong for the right reasons’, or maybe even ‘wrong for the wrong reasons’. But unless you agree with him, then you will have to admit that the Rebellion that he fostered was done for the purpose of promoting a doctrine which you have found to be false. Furthermore, it was on the basis of his belief in Salvation that Luther criticized the canon, so if you disagree with his version of Salvation, then you must agree that his criticism of the canon was wrong/misplaced/errant (insert a term).

So again, pick your poison. Which way is it?

I would appreciate your comments and God Bless You, Topper

Lutherans and Catholics agree as articulated in the many Dialogues including

I. The Status of the Nicene Creed as Dogma of the Church (1965)
II. One Baptism for the Remission of Sins (1966)
III. The Eucharist as Sacrifice (1968)
IV. Eucharist and Ministry (1970)
V. Papal Primacy and the Universal Church (1973)
VI. Teaching Authority & Infallibility in the Church (1978)
VII. Justification by Faith (1983)
VIII. The One Mediator, the Saints, and Mary (1990)
IX. Scripture and Tradition (1995)
X. The Church as Koinonia of Salvation: Its Structures and Ministries (2004)
XI. The Hope for Eternal Life (2010)

None of these are “nice sounding’ phrases”. Perhaps a review of # X “The Church as Koinonia of Salvation”] would shed light on your questions. I am slowly reading the entire document and will take a look at “salvation” as agreed upon by the Commission on Unity.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

My point is this. You cannot appeal to a common apostolic tradition when you disagree. One of you is wrong, and one of you is right.

Think about what you posted here for a minute…

Are you going to say that we don’t share our origins with the Apostles? Prove it.

Are you going to say that we didn’t share on the first 7 ecumenical councils? Prove it.

You don’t have a point in regards to this.

With regard to history; if you’re going to argue that you and the Orthodox are close because you come from the same historical origin, well, so do we! In fact, by that reasoning, we are closer, because our split was so much later! You think that there were Catholic bishops in Constantinople up until the middle of the eleventh century or thereabouts; well, they were in Canterbury until the sixteenth.

This is true. And if you search my posts from a year or so ago, you’ll see that I have often said that Protestants are the rebellious children of the Catholic Church. There is fault on both sides of the fence. But the focus of Protestantism has been and is focused on disagreements. Look at this board - your posts and most Protestants that post here frequently point the finger at the Great Schism as a means to escape an untenable position when confronted with history and authority. Or point the finger at those in the Church who voiced their disagreement on a position by the Church. No reasonable argumentation, no admission of fault, nothing but the pointing of fingers.

You cannot claim that similarity equals some kind of unity with one group but not with another. The Orthodox are not Roman Catholic. They have a different canon. We have a different canon. You either accept those differences or gloss over; you cannot continue to pick and choose.

Indeed I can. We share in the Traditions of the Church - read over the post I made about Traditions that are found in Scriptures that we have both been practicing. Do we have differences? Absolutely. Do they in any way deny the history we have in common? Absolutely not, I’d be a fool to think they do. It actually makes the division harder.

In like manner, the division between your communion and mine are present. However, this doesn’t deny the history we have together. That once we shared the same table. Again, I’d be a fool to believe a fallacy that disagreements are meant to deny history. No. Disagreements are part of the history that was shared.

As to the different types of unity, of course I can claim different similarities with different groups. Just look at the Catholic Church stand on the Eucharist and who are we allowed to partake with or not. Who does the Church recognizes to have a valid Eucharist or not. Indeed I can claim different levels of unity with the Orthodox and Protestantism. Further, different levels of unity within Protestantism.

You see, I am not picking and choosing.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response,

Source, please where Luther says he judges the books of the Bible based on justification. I’m currently reading Wisdom, and just finished Judith. I don’t recall any mention of the topic of Justification in either preface.

Nobody would expect to find a quote in Luther which says that he judged the canon on the basis of “finding” SBFA in various books or not. I’m sure that Luther didn’t think of it in that manner, but he certainly did make my point very clear by connecting two very interrelated of Luther’s thoughts. First of all, Luther graded/judged/criticized (pick a term) Scripture on the basis of whether it ‘preached Christ’. Secondly, according to Luther, the most critical element of Christian teaching was Salvation by Faith Alone. This explains how he could make such blasphemous remarks about James and judge that particular book as being ‘written by some Jew’ and that he ‘would not have it in his bible’. Of course he couldn’t see James as being ‘fully canonical’ along with the 23 books that he fully accepted. After all, James, as Luther clearly recognized, fully refuted SBFA. Given that Luther was unable to reconcile James and Paul, he only had two choices. He could seriously going to question SBFA or he could ‘downgrade’ James. There was NO WAY that Luther was going to question SBFA because that is what his tortured soul so demanded. So, there goes James! Off to the stove with you Jimmy.

While Luther would never have seen himself as ‘judging’ Scripture on the basis of SBFA, many non-Catholic scholars will make essentially the same point and we will be reviewing their comments. Those Lutherans who would prefer to always ‘see the best’ in Luther, and understand that it is not the place of ANY Christian to ‘judge’ the Scriptures in terms of what is and what it not Scripture, will never want to see Luther as ‘judging’ Scripture. Yet when you look at what Luther wrote about various books and the blasphemous remarks he made, the term ‘judging Scripture’ is extremely mild. I normally do not post quotes more than once, mostly because there never seems to be a limited number that are able to pound home a point. However, I have posted Preserved Smith’s quote a couple of times and have not gotten a comment from you on it. What do you think the following quote actually means? Or, alternatively, would you prefer to say that Smith was wrong, or that he had some kind of bias, or that he simply didn’t know the subject matter? I ask Jon, because I seem to me that you rarely use third party quotes to support your claims, which, in my book, makes them only your opinions.

“But Luther was not the man to be bound by his own rule; few of his followers have ever interpreted, commented on, and criticized the Bible with the freedom habitual to him. The books he judged according as they appealed to his own subjective nature, or according to his spiritual needs. “ Preserved Smith, “The Life and Letters of Martin Luther”, pg. 268

Every man to his opinion. But in no case does Luther claim an authority over others to agree with his opinions.

This is true Jon, at least for the time of these blasphemous remarks about the Bible, which in this case, was in 1522. But remember that by 1530 Luther was ALL ABOUT demanding that his beliefs be followed, and in fact he recommended that Anabaptists be executed, for simply holding the wrong belief. So, all of that language in his prefaces What I was asking though was specifically about the way that the Lutherans established the homologoumena and the antilegomena. Claim that it was subjective and that it was not in keeping with the criteria that the ancient Church determined the NT canon. You seem to be avoiding that point. Also, please don’t link me to a website where I might be required to spend a half a day reading to possibly misunderstand a point that you don’t care enough about to make here for all to see and scrutinize. For the record, I NEVER ask people to ‘go read something’ because I think its rude, especially for those people who are following along, but have no intention of going to some website. If you care enough about your point, make it here for everybody to see. Again, I say you can’t claim to be following the ancient Church in the establishment of the homologoumena and the antilegomena, because there was no consistent determination, prior to the late 4th and early 5th century. You can wade through those 26 or 27 known canons, all of which are pre-Athanasius, and all of which disagree with each other, and at the end of all that analysis, you STILL have to make a subjective decision, which is exactly what the Lutheran church did. If you want to disagree, and claim that it wasn’t subjective, then you will have to provide the details by which we can all see (supposedly) the validity of the Lutheran decisions on the homologoumena and the antilegomena.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

More to follow

 

[Passionknight]

Here are two links you should read when considering the Canon of Scripture: thecatholictreasurechest.com/canon.htm and :thecatholictreasurechest.com/deuter.htm

 

[JonNC]

Nobody would expect to find a quote in Luther which says that he judged the canon on the basis of “finding” SBFA in various books or not. I’m sure that Luther didn’t think of it in that manner, but he certainly did make my point very clear by connecting two very interrelated of Luther’s thoughts.

 

[JonNC]

This is true Jon, at least for the time of these blasphemous remarks about the Bible, which in this case, was in 1522. But remember that by 1530 Luther was ALL ABOUT demanding that his beliefs be followed, and in fact he recommended that Anabaptists be executed, for simply holding the wrong belief.

Really? So far as I know, none of the confessional writings for which Luther was alive, no where is his view of the canon of scripture listed. So much for all of his beliefs being followed.
Again, your use of the term blasphemous only reflects your own bias.

So, all of that language in his prefaces What I was asking though was specifically about the way that the Lutherans established the homologoumena and the antilegomena. Claim that it was subjective and that it was not in keeping with the criteria that the ancient Church determined the NT canon. You seem to be avoiding that point. Also, please don’t link me to a website where I might be required to spend a half a day reading to possibly misunderstand a point that you don’t care enough about to make here for all to see and scrutinize.

So, which is it, Tim. On the one hand, you claim I don’t refer to third parties, while on the other, you don’t want me to. I think the link answers your question sufficiently.

For the record, I NEVER ask people to ‘go read something’ because I think its rude, especially for those people who are following along, but have no intention of going to some website. If you care enough about your point, make it here for everybody to see.

It was posted on the thread.

Again, I say you can’t claim to be following the ancient Church in the establishment of the homologoumena and the antilegomena, because there was no consistent determination, prior to the late 4th and early 5th century. You can wade through those 26 or 27 known canons, all of which are pre-Athanasius, and all of which disagree with each other, and at the end of all that analysis, you STILL have to make a subjective decision, which is exactly what the Lutheran church did. If you want to disagree, and claim that it wasn’t subjective, then you will have to provide the details by which we can all see (supposedly) the validity of the Lutheran decisions on the homologoumena and the antilegomena.

Exactly. There is no precise or even consistent position by the Church on many books, which is why the Lutheran Church handles books the way they do. The “subjective approach” could easily be construed as the one where a group of bishops in the 1500’s decide, despite that diverse opinion of the fathers, to determine a canon themselves.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

For the record, I NEVER ask people to ‘go read something’ because I think its rude, especially for those people who are following along, but have no intention of going to some website. If you care enough about your point, make it here for everybody to see.

Regarding this, Tim. I seems CAF would prefer links, regardless whether you think its rude or not.

Guidelines on posting articles to Catholic Answer Forums:
Stay on the topic of the forum you are posting in. If you are going to post an article, make sure you are placing it in the correct forum.
Use the original title. When you post an article, be sure to use the original title in the subject of your post. This helps users find the article and lessens the chance of a double post.
Always provide a link to a publicly available news source.
**Avoid quoting from copyrighted works. Instead, paraphrase what is said and provide a link. If you do quote, limit your quotes to one to three paragraphs. **Do not post articles that make personal attacks or are in other ways inappropriate for the CA forums.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Lutheran lectionary also has readings from the Apocrypha.

If you want to foster unity, EC, it’s probably best not to call the DeuteroCanon “Apocryphya”.

Apocrypha means “false”.

 

[Novocastrian]

If you want to foster unity, EC, it’s probably best not to call the DeuteroCanon “Apocryphya”.

Apocrypha means “false”.

It might mean that if your Greek is really, really bad.

 

[spina1953]

Concerning Canon: After reading some history about the canon of Scripture it seems to me that during the time of Jesus and after, there was no official established canon of Hebrew Scripture. In fact, there were writings some which were considered sacred and others not considered sacred, depending on the various Jewish religious fractions of the time. The Sanhedrin and Sadducees only considered the Law of Moses ( the first 5 books to be Scripture, while the Pharisees and Scribes considered other writings to be Scripture. The Essenes also had writings they considered to be Scripture and there was also the Septuagint of the Greek speaking Jews. None were in agreement with the others as to what was considered anything that could be called a canon of Scripture ad what was not.

  The authors of the writings the Catholic Church consider Sacred Scripture did not think themselves inspired nor did they think their writings Scripture. This is true of the OT as well as the NT authors. It was the catholic Church who after much debate decided what was to be Sacred Scripture and what was not. There was a great many writings being circulating among the various churches due to the fact that there were no agreed collection of authoritative Christian books.

  Besides those books that are today part of the NT, there were also other books or writings, such as the Didache, 1 Clement, the gospel of Thomas, gospel of truth, gospel of the Egyptians, gospel of the Hebrews, gospel of Judus, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of peter and a great many more. In determining which books which books and writings were apostolic no single criterion was used. The Christian Bible was not the work of a group of Bishops sitting down with a stack of books before them, discussing the merits of each, and putting some in one pile and others in another. The process was gradual, a slow winnowing over several centuries.

   So it was to the Catholic Church to decide what writings would be considered Sacred Scripture of the Old and New Testaments. ^The canon of Scripture as defined by the Catholic Church is of the Church, it belongs to the Church and its her office therefore, to declare what is sacred Scripture and what it means. Scripture then is intended for instruction, meditation, spiritual reading, encouragement, devotion, and serves as proof and testimony of the Church's doctrine and divine authority; however, as a complete and exclusive guide to heaven in the hands of everyone that the Bible above the Church, the Bible independent of the Church; the Bible, and Bible only, the religion of Christians is wrong thinking. Without the Catholic Church which came before the canon of Sacred Scripture, who would know with any certainty what to believe.

BTW Apocrypha is the translation of the Greek word apokeryphos meaning hidden.

 

[spina1953]

Concerning Canon: After reading some history about the canon of Scripture it seems to me that during the time of Jesus and after, there was no official established canon of Hebrew Scripture. In fact, there were writings some which were considered sacred and others not considered sacred, depending on the various Jewish religious fractions of the time. The Sanhedrin and Sadducees only considered the Law of Moses ( the first 5 books to be Scripture, while the Pharisees and Scribes considered other writings to be Scripture. The Essenes also had writings they considered to be Scripture and there was also the Septuagint of the Greek speaking Jews. None were in agreement with the others as to what was considered anything that could be called a canon of Scripture and what was not.

  The authors of the writings the Catholic Church consider Sacred Scripture did not think themselves inspired nor did they think their writings Scripture. This is true of the OT as well as the NT authors. It was the Catholic Church who after much debate decided what was to be Sacred Scripture and what was not. There was a great many writings being circulating among the various churches due to the fact that there were no agreed collection of authoritative Christian books.

  Besides those books that are today part of the NT, there were also other books or writings, such as the Didache, 1 Clement, the gospel of Thomas, gospel of truth, gospel of the Egyptians, gospel of the Hebrews, gospel of Judus, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter and a great many more. In determining which books and writings were apostolic no single criterion was used. The Christian Bible was not the work of a group of Bishops sitting down with a stack of books before them, discussing the merits of each, and putting some in one pile and others in another. The process was gradual, a slow winnowing over several centuries.

   So it was to the Catholic Church to decide what writings would be considered Sacred Scripture of the Old and New Testaments. The canon of Scripture as defined by the Catholic Church is of the Church, it belongs to the Church and its her office therefore, to declare what is Sacred Scripture and what it means. Scripture then is intended for instruction, meditation, spiritual reading, encouragement, devotion, and serves as proof and testimony of the Church's doctrine and divine authority; however, as a complete and exclusive guide to heaven in the hands of everyone that the Bible above the Church, the Bible independent of the Church; the Bible, and Bible only, the religion of Christians is wrong thinking. Without the Catholic Church which came before the canon of Sacred Scripture, who would know with any certainty what to believe.

BTW Apocrypha is the translation of the Greek word apokeryphos meaning hidden.

 

[PRmerger]

It might mean that if your Greek is really, really bad.

Well, since we’re native English speakers here, let’s just go with what it means in English.

And it seems counterproductive for someone who is espousing unity to use a term which indicates the books are spurious.

Just sayin’…,

 

[Topper17]

Concerning Canon: After reading some history about the canon of Scripture it seems to me that during the time of Jesus and after, there was no official established canon of Hebrew Scripture. In fact, there were writings some which were considered sacred and others not considered sacred, depending on the various Jewish religious fractions of the time. The Sanhedrin and Sadducees only considered the Law of Moses ( the first 5 books to be Scripture, while the Pharisees and Scribes considered other writings to be Scripture. The Essenes also had writings they considered to be Scripture and there was also the Septuagint of the Greek speaking Jews. None were in agreement with the others as to what was considered anything that could be called a canon of Scripture ad what was not.

  The authors of the writings the Catholic Church consider Sacred Scripture did not think themselves inspired nor did they think their writings Scripture. This is true of the OT as well as the NT authors. It was the catholic Church who after much debate decided what was to be Sacred Scripture and what was not. There was a great many writings being circulating among the various churches due to the fact that there were no agreed collection of authoritative Christian books.

  Besides those books that are today part of the NT, there were also other books or writings, such as the Didache, 1 Clement, the gospel of Thomas, gospel of truth, gospel of the Egyptians, gospel of the Hebrews, gospel of Judus, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of peter and a great many more. In determining which books which books and writings were apostolic no single criterion was used. The Christian Bible was not the work of a group of Bishops sitting down with a stack of books before them, discussing the merits of each, and putting some in one pile and others in another. The process was gradual, a slow winnowing over several centuries.

   So it was to the Catholic Church to decide what writings would be considered Sacred Scripture of the Old and New Testaments. ^The canon of Scripture as defined by the Catholic Church is of the Church, it belongs to the Church and its her office therefore, to declare what is sacred Scripture and what it means. Scripture then is intended for instruction, meditation, spiritual reading, encouragement, devotion, and serves as proof and testimony of the Church's doctrine and divine authority; however, as a complete and exclusive guide to heaven in the hands of everyone that the Bible above the Church, the Bible independent of the Church; the Bible, and Bible only, the religion of Christians is wrong thinking. Without the Catholic Church which came before the canon of Sacred Scripture, who would know with any certainty what to believe.

BTW Apocrypha is the translation of the Greek word apokeryphos meaning hidden.

Hi Spina,

Your comments are right on the money (of course). It was to the Church that Holy Spirit revealed not only the Scriptures themselves, but also the guidance to recognize what should be viewed as authoritative and what should not. Of course, during the Reformation, it became very ‘fashionable’ to question everything. Now we hear things like that every denomination should have the right to pick it’s own canon of the NT. As if there are no standards in Christianity which are above criticism? So, what is the result of all of that ‘freedom’ - rampant denominizationism, which only the most liberal think is acceptable.

Right from the very beginning it was the Church that was recognized as being authoritative in terms of determining what was and what was not inspired. The writings of the Early Church Fathers are full of warnings against those who would misuse Scripture for their own purposes. Just one example is as follows but there are dozens more.

“Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testaments, and what those of the New.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:33 (A.D. 350).

What did Luther substitute for this kind of wisdom – “Learn from ME what authority should be assigned to the various books of Scripture.” Luther’s concept of Sola Scriptura makes so little sense in the real world (see the example of Protestantism), but what makes even less sense is this concept that everyone (every denomination) has the authority to decide on their own canon. This is a prescription for heresy in that, exactly as Luther did, they are all ‘free’ to emphasize some parts of the gospel message to the detriment of others, and THEN judge the books of the NT canon with that emphasis in mind. With this kind of freedom, Lutherans have absolutely no right to criticize the LDS.

This idea of having an antilegomena and an homolegomena also runs counter to common sense. If a book is inspired by the Holy Spirit, then it belongs in the NT. If it is not, then it should not be in the NT. This idea of a ‘quasi-inspiration’ is silly. If a book is deemed to be inspired by the Holy Sprit, then it is by definition, working against the Holy Spirit to ‘demote’ it to the secondary status of the lesser books.

In order for ANY of the dozens of competing and conflicting concepts of Sola Scriptura to actually a chance of making any sense at all, the Scriptures need to be set and finalized. This idea of an “only relatively closed canon” is asking for trouble, and we already have plenty of that.

Again, I ask – What if a Lutheran minister today, used the ‘freedom’ that he has as a Christian (and pastor and maybe PhD) has to criticize whole books of the Bible the way that Luther did? What chance would that minister have of keeping his job? Hopefully – none, and I would always have said without a doubt that there would be none. However, after the last few weeks, I don’t have the same confidence that I used to have.

God Bless You Spina and Excellent Post, Topper

 

[Novocastrian]

“Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testaments, and what those of the New.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:33 (A.D. 350).

…]

This idea of having an antilegomena and an homolegomena also runs counter to common sense. If a book is inspired by the Holy Spirit, then it belongs in the NT. If it is not, then it should not be in the NT. This idea of a ‘quasi-inspiration’ is silly. If a book is deemed to be inspired by the Holy Sprit, then it is by definition, working against the Holy Spirit to ‘demote’ it to the secondary status of the lesser books.

Would learning from St. Athanasius the Great count as learning from the Church?

Athanasius maintained just such a distinction.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11616123]Hi Spina,

Your comments are right on the money (of course). It was to the Church that Holy Spirit revealed not only the Scriptures themselves, but also the guidance to recognize what should be viewed as authoritative and what should not. Of course, during the Reformation, it became very ‘fashionable’ to question everything. Now we hear things like that every denomination should have the right to pick it’s own canon of the NT. As if there are no standards in Christianity which are above criticism? So, what is the result of all of that ‘freedom’ - rampant denominizationism, which only the most liberal think is acceptable.

By this you are laying “rampant denominationalism” right at the feet of Pre-Trent Catholicism. That’s where the freedom came from. Even before the Reformation, there was no set, universally agreed upon canon. The East still has varying canons.

Right from the very beginning it was the Church that was recognized as being authoritative in terms of determining what was and what was not inspired. The writings of the Early Church Fathers are full of warnings against those who would misuse Scripture for their own purposes. Just one example is as follows but there are dozens more.

“Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testaments, and what those of the New.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:33 (A.D. 350).

Amen.

What did Luther substitute for this kind of wisdom – “Learn from ME what authority should be assigned to the various books of Scripture.” Luther’s concept of Sola Scriptura makes so little sense in the real world (see the example of Protestantism), but what makes even less sense is this concept that everyone (every denomination) has the authority to decide on their own canon. This is a prescription for heresy in that, exactly as Luther did, they are all ‘free’ to emphasize some parts of the gospel message to the detriment of others, and THEN judge the books of the NT canon with that emphasis in mind.

Your bias. As I have pointed out and you have ignored for your own polemical purpose, Luther often states throughout his prefaces that people are not bound to his opinions.
As for the bolded, that seems to have been the accepted practice prior to Trent, prior to the Reformation. Can you name a set canon that every Patriarchate agreed to in council?

This idea of having an antilegomena and an homolegomena also runs counter to common sense. If a book is inspired by the Holy Spirit, then it belongs in the NT. If it is not, then it should not be in the NT. This idea of a ‘quasi-inspiration’ is silly. If a book is deemed to be inspired by the Holy Sprit, then it is by definition, working against the Holy Spirit to ‘demote’ it to the secondary status of the lesser books.

Blame Eusebius. They are, as far as I know, his terms.

In order for ANY of the dozens of competing and conflicting concepts of Sola Scriptura to actually a chance of making any sense at all, the Scriptures need to be set and finalized. This idea of an “only relatively closed canon” is asking for trouble, and we already have plenty of that.

This is nonsense. Lutheranism, for one, has only one definition for the practice, and the concept under which we use the canon is pretty succinct.
Additionally, in post #258, Per Crucem stated:

The Lutheran Confessions operate under the assumption that the prevalent canon of Scripture used in the Western Churches of the time of the Book of Concord is the accepted one. Though it allows for disagreement over the deuterocanonicals, the majority of the Lutheran Reformers and the authors of the Formula of Concord were in agreement that the deuterocanonicals were Scripture, if of lesser authority than other OT books.

continued

 

[JonNC]

Again, I ask – What if a Lutheran minister today, used the ‘freedom’ that he has as a Christian (and pastor and maybe PhD) has to criticize whole books of the Bible the way that Luther did? What chance would that minister have of keeping his job? Hopefully – none, and I would always have said without a doubt that there would be none. However, after the last few weeks, I don’t have the same confidence that I used to have.

And again, this question was clearly answered earlier in the thread, in post 217.

• “What induces us to discuss this question is the fact that Pastor Roebbelen in connection with the glosses on the Revelation of St. John published in the Lutheraner also stated that with Luther he does not regard the Apocalypse as canonical. This has, we are informed, given great offense in some quarters. Now, we do not agree with our dear brother Roebbelen on this point; we are convinced that this precious book, so rich in comfort for the Christians and the Church, belongs to the canon. Still, we believe that it is not fair – probably it is due to ignorance of the facts of the case – to stamp an otherwise unimpeachable theologian as a dangerous false teacher, who renders the very Word of God suspect, one who sincerely receives as canonical all homologoumena (universally accepted books), but who has his doubts as to the canonicity of one or the other of the antilegomena (disputed books). This would be thoroughly un-Lutheran. For our dear fathers in the faith, with hardly an exception till after the time of the Formula of Concord, regarded and declared all or at least some of the antilegomena as not belonging to the canon; and they did that not from hastiness or levity toward the Word of God, but, on the contrary, because they were very conscientious with regard to the Word of God. Luther’s opinions on the antilegomena are not a “blot” on our Church, but they rather bear witness how careful our Church once was in determining the standard and norm of our faith and life.” * - CFW Walther

angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.pieperwitness.html

Jon

 

[spina1953]

Hi Spina,

Your comments are right on the money (of course). It was to the Church that Holy Spirit revealed not only the Scriptures themselves, but also the guidance to recognize what should be viewed as authoritative and what should not. Of course, during the Reformation, it became very ‘fashionable’ to question everything. Now we hear things like that every denomination should have the right to pick it’s own canon of the NT. As if there are no standards in Christianity which are above criticism? So, what is the result of all of that ‘freedom’ - rampant denominizationism, which only the most liberal think is acceptable.

Right from the very beginning it was the Church that was recognized as being authoritative in terms of determining what was and what was not inspired. The writings of the Early Church Fathers are full of warnings against those who would misuse Scripture for their own purposes. Just one example is as follows but there are dozens more.

“Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testaments, and what those of the New.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:33 (A.D. 350).

What did Luther substitute for this kind of wisdom – “Learn from ME what authority should be assigned to the various books of Scripture.” Luther’s concept of Sola Scriptura makes so little sense in the real world (see the example of Protestantism), but what makes even less sense is this concept that everyone (every denomination) has the authority to decide on their own canon. This is a prescription for heresy in that, exactly as Luther did, they are all ‘free’ to emphasize some parts of the gospel message to the detriment of others, and THEN judge the books of the NT canon with that emphasis in mind. With this kind of freedom, Lutherans have absolutely no right to criticize the LDS.

This idea of having an antilegomena and an homolegomena also runs counter to common sense. If a book is inspired by the Holy Spirit, then it belongs in the NT. If it is not, then it should not be in the NT. This idea of a ‘quasi-inspiration’ is silly. If a book is deemed to be inspired by the Holy Sprit, then it is by definition, working against the Holy Spirit to ‘demote’ it to the secondary status of the lesser books.

In order for ANY of the dozens of competing and conflicting concepts of Sola Scriptura to actually a chance of making any sense at all, the Scriptures need to be set and finalized. This idea of an “only relatively closed canon” is asking for trouble, and we already have plenty of that.

Again, I ask – What if a Lutheran minister today, used the ‘freedom’ that he has as a Christian (and pastor and maybe PhD) has to criticize whole books of the Bible the way that Luther did? What chance would that minister have of keeping his job? Hopefully – none, and I would always have said without a doubt that there would be none. However, after the last few weeks, I don’t have the same confidence that I used to have.

God Bless You Spina and Excellent Post, Topper

Hi Topper: Thanks for the support.

I would like to add that throughout the history of the people who became the Jews have dispute, and disagreed as to what is and is not Sacred writings. As anyone who has studied Jewish history, The Sanhedrin, Scribes, Pharisees and the Essenes disputed and disagreed as to what were Sacred writings. Some believed some writings to be Sacred while others thought other writings were Sacred, since there was no official canon as such to determine what was and what was not Sacred Scripture. Some were accepted while others were not.

In the very early Church there was not canon of Sacred Scripture, since the Apostles were preaching and teaching orally just Jesus did. In the first years it never occurred to them that they needed to write anything down. It may have because of Paul writing to the various Churches he founded that there gradually came a need a few apostles decided to write down some of the things Jesus said, did and taught and preached.

By the time of the Council of Nicaea, there were a great many writings which were being read and used in many of the Churches. and at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD that some list of writings to be considered Sacred was agreed to. However, this did not mean in any sense of the term that there were no disputes or disagreements as to what was Sacred writings and which were not. This continued until the Council of Trent when it became finalized as to what was to be considered inspired and therefore a part of the faith of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church by the guidance of the Holy Spirit saw God as the author of the writings that the Church collected and therefore were indeed Sacred.
Due to Martin Luther who for whatever reason, disputed certain books as not inspired or canonical. This opened the door so to speak for others to dispute and also disagree as to what was considered sacred and so canonical. it became what Zwimgli feared that namely a human seal of approval set upon the work of God.

 

[Topper17]

The source of Luther’s criticism of the canon and of particular books of the Bible was his radical Salvational beliefs. For Luther, EVERYTHING revolved around Salvation by Faith Alone (SBFA); it was the motivation for EVERYTHING. It was because of Luther’s massive fears that he had ‘no choice’ but to gin up SBFA out of Scripture, regardless of what the Scripture actually said. Everything past that, all of his other doctrinal teachings, including his criticism of the canon, were forced to comply with SBFA. However, because Luther was not a ‘Systematic Theologian’, he wasn’t very aware of how his various beliefs ‘hung together’ as a whole. In other words, he did not recognize when he formulated SBFA, just exactly how many established doctrines would have to fall by the wayside in order to maintain SBFA. As one brief example, despite being admonished for the inconsistency by better Theologians, he maintained his belief in Purgatory until 1530, when he finally recognized the contradiction.

Since the Protestant Reformation was based on Luther’s beliefs on SBFA, it would seem that Protestants have a lot invested in whether it is actually true (or not). If Protestantism determines that Luther was wrong, then the only conclusion possible is that Luther began his Revolt against the Catholic Church to pursue a doctrine of Salvation which, as it turned out, was wrong. This would mean that Luther was wrong to revolt against the Church. If he had pursued the Truth about Salvation, a Truth that Protestantism now recognizes as Truth (God’s Absolute Truth), then his Revolt would have been a Holy Effort.

Protestant Scholars have (finally) begun to reassess Luther’s doctrinal beliefs on Salvation. The first we will review is from Alister McGrath, a longtime professor at Oxford.

“Since the Second World War, there has been a growing hesitation within many sections of Protestantism concerning the traditional way of speaking about salvation. (See McGrath, “Institia Dei”, pg. 406-420). While some have insisted that Protestants are bound by their tradition to speak and think in this manner, others have expressed anxieties over its continued use, especially in the light of a growing consensus among New Testament scholars that the notion of ‘justification by faith’ is not central to the thought of the New Testament scholars, or even Paul himself, as Luther and others appear to have believed.” McGrath, “Dangerous”, pg. 250

It would appear that, in regards to Salvation, Luther was “wrong for the right reasons”, which means that his Revolt is “wrong for the right reasons”, which means that the Reformation was wrong (for the right reasons). Now – if Luther had (again) actually been pursuing a ‘version’ of Salvation that Protestantism can still support, then, according to Protestantism, Luther’s Revolt against the Church would be ‘right for the right reasons’. He would have been pursuing what actually WAS God’s Absolute Truth and had no choice but to revolt against the Church. But what McGrath is revealing is that Protestantism can no longer support Luther’s version of Salvation.

“Many follow Albert Schweitzer (Lutheran pastor and Theologian), who suggested that the idea of justification was only a ‘subsidiary crater’ in Paul’s thought, rather than constituting its core and center. Why, many Protestant scholars have asked, should the movement be obliged to replicate Luther’s interpretation of Paul when it appears questionable at points? Are not Protestants meant to constantly reexamine their ideas in the light of biblical material rather than accept interpretation inherited from the past, however venerable or influential?”, McGrath, “Dangerous”, pg. 250

Of course, people will try to counter the comments of excellent Protestant Scholars like McGrath, but often with nothing more substantial than a personal opinion.

 

[Topper17]

We have read how a shockingly large number of Lutheran Theologians who have chosen to convert, both to the RCC and also to the EOC. In fact, I would suggest that the proportion of Lutheran Theologians who become swimmers, is larger than the lay Lutheran population. I would also suggest that those well trained Theologians would NOT find it possible to convert from Lutheranism, if they still believed in the Lutheran ‘version’ of Salvation. Obviously they have all become convinced that the Catholic teaching on Salvation is superior.

Of course, the general perception among Americans is that the general trend is away from Catholicism, with more Catholics becoming Protestant than vice versa. That is not the case.

“Yet while many Protestants no longer regard Catholicism as an enemy, it is still widely seen as a rival. This perception has been catalyzed by a significant development since about 1990 – prominent Protestants, including evangelicals, having been converted, either by ‘crossing the Tiber’ to Catholicism or “crossing the Bosporus” to Orthodoxy. In 1990 the leading Lutheran Richard John Neuhaus converted to Catholicism, setting a trend that has escalated since then. Recent defections from the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) illustrate this trend well. Robert Wilken, a leading Lutheran patristics scholar teaching at the University of Virginia, became a Roman Catholic. The preeminent church historian Jaroslav Pelikan, Sterling Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale University, became a member of the Orthodox Church. Leonard Klein, pastor of Christ Church, a large Lutheran parish in York, Pennsylvania, and sometime editor of “Lutheran Forum”, converted to Catholicism with his family and is studying for priesthood. Bruce Marshall, one of America’s most significant younger Lutheran theologian, recently converted to Catholicism. The list goes on.” McGrath, “Dangerous”, pg. 411-2,

McGrath wrote “Dangerous” in 2007, and as evidenced in a different post, the momentum for Lutheran Theologians converting has not abated since then.

“What is causing these conversions? It is clear that a variety of factors are involved. One of the reasons so many evangelicals are ‘crossing the Bosphorus’ is that they are alarmed at evangelicalism’s lack of historical roots and institutional continuity with the New Testament and they see Orthodoxy as having particularly strong credentials in this area.” McGrath, pg. 412

Ouch! That is a strong comment for a Protestant to make regarding the conversions of Lutherans.

“Other Protestants are uneasy about the bibilical foundations of one of the core ideas of the first phase of the Reformation – the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Catholic critics regularly argue that this is unbiblical: not only, they insist, is there no New Testament passage which affirms this idea, but one passage explicitly condemns the idea.” McGrath, pg. 412

Again, this is an amazingly honest and strong comment from a Protestant Scholar. The idea that the biblical foundations for SBFA are ‘less than robust’ and that the Scriptures do not support, but in fact deny SBFA – is well, very Catholic. I have several McGrath books and have been reading him for years. He is extremely bright and insightful. In addition he has a very high capacity to ‘connect the dots’. I would be willing to bet, better than 50-50, that McGrath will someday be a ‘swimmer’. You can just sense it in his writings, the same way you can read things in Pelikan prior to his conversion from Lutheranism to Orthodoxy that indicated that he was ‘leaning’.

“A third group is concerned about developments within their denominations that they regard as departing from historic Christianity; therefore, they have transferred to churches with a strong record of defending the tradition. The long term implications of this trend, if continued, remain uncertain. Yet all indications are that it has not led to increased hostility between Catholicism and Protestantism but is actually the outcome of increased understanding, which makes ecclesiastical transitions easier. While the evidence is that some Catholics do convert to forms of Protestantism, the traffic appears to be primarily in the other direction.” McGrath, pg. 412

As McGrath points out, the trend of Lutherans converting (as opposed to the opposite direction) is partially as a result of ‘increased understanding’, and, if Lutheran Theologians are more prone to convert than Lutheran laypeople, as I suspect, then the Lutheran/Catholic dialogue actually does appear to be bearing fruit.