Protestant Canon

[JonNC]

Then it’s Faith and Love, and Love is really the greatest Work of all.

Paul is pretty clear, that if he has all the Faith to move mountains but has no love, he is nothing… This alone debunks faith alone.

I’m not minimizing the importance of Faith (It has carried me through many a trials), just not alone .

Faith can never be alone. While faith justifies (Paul never says we are justified by love), love must always be there. James could easily have said faith without love is dead

Jon

 

[spina1953]

But we don’t allow for private interpretations for doctrine - we have this rather large book called the Book of Concorde that lays out our doctrine. To be Lutheran is to assent to what it says - and it’s no light tome: I could use it bludgeon any rabid animal that would attack me.

The idea that “you pop open a bible as a chose your own adventure” isn’t Catholic, but it also isn’t Lutheran.

benjohnson: I understand what you are saying about Lutherans and have no problem with that. My comment was more in general of those who are not in the what is called the main line Protestant movement. It seems to me that there are many who think that all one needs to do is open up the Bible and whatever they read they interpret in whatever way they deem correct and everyone else is wrong. That seems to me to be the real problem, and I understand that in the Lutheran Church and belief system this is not done just as it is not done in the CC.

 

[drblank1]

The Fathers belong to something much bigger than themselves: The Church. They can express their ideas and are without a doubt great teachers. But if the Church speaks on a matter, then the case is closed.

If we look at quotes and teachings, they must be looked at in light of the Church. Or we will go insane or confused or both.

St. Paul never says Faith alone. So when we read St. James in light of St. Paul, it is pretty clear why St. Paul never said it.

Because it is not by faith alone.

Both Paul and James were speaking of justification, but it two different meaning:

Paul - “absolve, declare free of blame”, when we are saved by faith.
James - “to demonstrate or prove to be just, right or valid; to show to be well founded.”, what happens after we are saved.

When Paul talks about Abraham in this sense, he is speaking of the beginning of Abraham’s walk with God. Genesis 15:5-6, “And He took him outside and said, ‘Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.’ And He said to him, ‘So shall your descendants be.’ Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.”

When James speaks of Abraham, he cites 25 year later in Abraham’s walk with God. Genesis 22:12 “And he said, ‘Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.’”

James is not referring to the same meaning of justification as that of Paul. When you read the verse Catholics love to cite in context with the rest of the book of James, the message is clear that good works are a result of salvation. Protestants believe good works are a result of salvation, they don’t cause salvation.

For instance, I have a lot of close friends who are confirmed Catholic. They don’t go to church, they don’t pray, study the Bible, and don’t make a concerted effort to further God’s kingdom. The only time they think about God is when they go to church on Christmas and Easter. They admit that God is nowhere on their minds hardly at all. I’m not deriding them. Two of them are my VERY best friends. But would you not agree their faith is dead? But since they are confirmed, they are saved, correct? This is James’ point.

 

[PRmerger]

EXACTLY!!! For anyone to declare that the Holy Spirit gave them exclusive authority in all matter of faith is unbiblical. Even the apostles corrected each other at times. My church does not declare that and I am suspect of any church that does.

Then you must consider the 27 book canon of Scripture suspect.

For unless you have examined each of the 27 books, and scrutinized the other 400 ancient Christian texts, you give tacit submission to the authority of the CC to tell you what belongs in the NT.

 

[PRmerger]

I am constantly told that I have been lied to and the I need to unlearn those lies. Yet, in my church, we are taught to test what our teachers preach using scripture as we all are instructed by the apostles. Don’t blindly accept those teachings. Pray and read the scriptures!!! In your church, you are commanded to believe whatever is declared as the Truth, or be accursed. Hmmmmmmmm…

Even though you say that you are not commanded what to believe, in truth, you are indeed given a certain paradigm of beliefs you MUST adhere to, or else you cannot be a member of your church.

To wit: if you declare that you have read the Scriptures, prayed about it, and will no longer “blindly accept” that Jesus rose from the dead, you will not be permitted to do so.

So it’s curious that what you object to in the CC, you submit to yourself in your own church.

 

[PRmerger]

We can reasonably assume who wrote those books.

Reasonably assume?

Who decides whether the degree of doubt that is assigned to each book is enough to dismiss?

Whose authority do you defer in that, drblank, to tell you which authors are not suspect, and which ones are confirmed.

And remember, you do not know who wrote Hebrews.

Yet you consider it inspired (thanks to the authority of the CC, BTW).

We cannot do that with the apocrypha. They are undeniably unknown.

If you exclude the apocrypha, you need to exclude Proverbs, and Malachi, which Wiki says, “Thus, there is substantial debate regarding the identity of the book’s author”.

Also, you need to throw out Habakkuk, who “openly questions the wisdom of God”.


[BIBLEDRB]Habakkuk 1:3[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Habakkuk 1:13[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Topper17]

Hi Don,

I owe an apology to both you and spina1953. After several posts of the “Yes, I agree.” and “Yes, I’m glad you agree.” variety, I suspected sock puppetry might be at play. I flippantly questioned the source of the posts, and I was wrong for doing so. I should have notified Eric instead of posting my skepticism publicly. Please forgive me for jumping to conclusions. I hope this public confession atones, at least in part, for wrongly having accused you.

Apology accepted, and not in part, but in total. If I have offended you personally, then I also apologize. My comments have not been directed at you personally, but I do recognize that Lutherans often take criticism of Luther as if it was directed at them personally.

If you had notified Eric, you would have been told that your suspicions were unfounded.

I have also been offended. Your style of posting appears to be more focused on winning some perceived debate than on learning what others believe (It’s worth mentioning that such behavior would not be tolerated in these forums if you were Protestant). We can have civil discourse about beliefs without relying so heavily on polemics and speculative ad hominem attacks on men long dead. Perhaps you can follow the legendary example of Emperor Karl at Luther’s Grave.

While again, I apologize for your being upset, that is not ever my goal. However, I don’t think I have ever said anything offensive about any poster here. Your taking offense is taking offense on the part of Luther, not yourself.

Maybe I should (again) explain where I am coming from. My studies have proven to me that Luther was a poor Theologian. In addition, I believe that his doctrine of Sola Scriptura PLUS the Right of the Individual to Interpret (SS+PI) is directly responsible for the massive denominalization within Protestantism. I don’t see how that can be denied. In other words, I hold Luther personally responsible for dividing the Church that Christ established on earth for us ALL to belong to.

Given the fact that Luther is responsible for the division that we now suffer, getting to the bottom of his motivations and abilities, and who he was is of paramount importance. One of the things that makes this effort more difficult is the ‘Legend’ of Luther, which would have us believe that he was MUCH ‘better’ than what the historical man Martin Luther really was.

Virtually everything that doctrinally separates Catholicism and (general) Protestantism came DIRECTLY from the mind of Martin Luther. However, once Luther had developed SS+PI, but before he recognized what a disaster it would be in the real world, which was only about a 10 – 12 year period, that genie (SS+PI) was out of the bottle. Once Luther realized that he had actually unleased doctrinal anarchy, he tried to reign it back in, but that genie would not go back into the bottle. While Lutheranism does not believe in SS+PI in its most virulent version, much of the rest of Protestantism (the other 90%) actually does.

My experience is that Lutherans often want to ‘skip past’ Luther and get right to their Confessions, as if Luther shouldn’t be held accountable for all of his less than logical and less than Scriptural teachings and actions. I have often heard that Lutherans should not be made to answer for SS+PI. I agree, but Martin Luther should, and since Luther is the founder of Lutheranism – well………

My position is that there is a great deal to be learned about Protestantism in the history of Luther vs. the Church also in the arguments that each side made against the other, both Scriptural and also from Christian History, and logic and reason.

I fully realize that the truth about Luther is embarrassing to Protestants also to Lutherans, but do not believe that the Truth about the Church and Luther’s opposition should be covered up in the name of some sort of timid and misguided version of ecumenism. I believe that real unity is much more possible if we all face up to the facts of history. As they say, if you are going to make an omelet, you are going to break some eggs. Let’s face it – either Protestantism or Catholicism is ‘right’ in God’s Eyes (or neither). As one who happens to believe that God’s Absolute Truth is extremely important, I believe that our differences are extremely important and that God would like to see us solve them. That requires us to go directly to the source of our division and determine whether Luther was right or the Church of his day was right to oppose him.

I also happen to believe (as you have been reading) that the Truth about Martin Luther (as opposed to the Legend) reveals a great deal about whether it was Luther or the Church which was ‘right in God’s Eyes’ in the sixteenth century. All that being said, what would you suggest I do?

I believe that Protestants deserve to know the Truth about the Reformation and about Luther. Personally I believe that it is my duty to share my findings and my opinions. If people want to ignore them and hold to their own opinions, that is up to them, but it is foolish to take the man who divided Western Christendom out of the dialogue, especially if the reason because he is embarrassing so some.

For the record, I do see this as an apologetics debate forum, because that is exactly what it is. I always want to be sensitive to people’s feelings. But on the other hand, Lutherans cannot claim that they don’t really follow Martin Luther and then become really upset when he is criticized.

Don, You deserve my respect and I look forward to our future discussions, May God Bless You, Topper

 

[drblank1]

pablope;11683647:

First, why would there be a protestant council when there isn’t a protestant church?
For Lutherans, regardless of synod, the view of scripture is rather uniform and consistent, which is remarkable since our confessions to not set a specific canon of books. How we view the books depends on how the history of the Church does.

Which brings me to your main question - so where did protestants get the authority not to include the DC books - but from a Lutheran not a protestant POV. It isn’t a matter of authority, it was a matter of Christian/Catholic privilege to dispute the books. From Eusebius, Jerome, and other Fathers, we get differing lists of books that they considered canon. At the time leading up to Trent, the dispute continued, not even talking about Lutherans or other separate reformation era communions. And that privilege continues for me today, hence my comments to your earlier post.

Rhetorically, I could ask where Rome received the authority to exclude other books of the Septuagint? If the Septuagint is the basis we should use to determine canonicity, then why exclude books such as 3 and 4 Macc?
It truly is a rhetorical question, because in the West, for centuries, the majority view was in favor of the 73 book canon, and that majority view includes some rather stout and god bishops and Christian men of our history in the western Church.

Jon

The Nazarene Church receives its authority from the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture for the Nazarene Church. The Catholic Church can only speak for the Catholic church.

Can I say it is wrong for the Catholic Church to have the apocryphal writings in their Bible and to derive doctrine from them? No. Can the RCC do the same for the Nazarene? Absolutely not. Your head bishop had no more authority over the Nazarene Church as I have authority over him.

But maybe in the end, we are speaking semantics. When Protestants speak of canon, we are indicating the spoken Word of God.

Is all of the Catholic canon considered the same? Or is there the holy spoken Word of God (the 66 books we all agree on) and the other writings?

 

[drblank1]

Then you must consider the 27 book canon of Scripture suspect.

For unless you have examined each of the 27 books, and scrutinized the other 400 ancient Christian texts, you give tacit submission to the authority of the CC to tell you what belongs in the NT.

What I have done is study (and continue) God’s Word and much of what is written on the subject. Have I personally read all the texts, no. Have you? I doubt it. But I can take the totality of what I do know and listen to the Holy Spirit and come to the conclusion that it would be wrong for me to accept any doctrine from substandard writing that clearly are not the spoken Word of God.

The difference is you blindly follow what the Catholic church tells you to believe. I study God’s Word, pray, and listen to the Holy Spirit (as instructed by the apostles). I don’t blindly accept anything anyone teaches (Protestant or Catholic).

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Both Paul and James were speaking of justification, but it two different meaning:

Paul - “absolve, declare free of blame”, when we are saved by faith.
James - “to demonstrate or prove to be just, right or valid; to show to be well founded.”, what happens after we are saved.

When Paul talks about Abraham in this sense, he is speaking of the beginning of Abraham’s walk with God. Genesis 15:5-6, “And He took him outside and said, ‘Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.’ And He said to him, ‘So shall your descendants be.’ Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.”

When James speaks of Abraham, he cites 25 year later in Abraham’s walk with God. Genesis 22:12 “And he said, ‘Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.’”

James is not referring to the same meaning of justification as that of Paul. When you read the verse Catholics love to cite in context with the rest of the book of James, the message is clear that good works are a result of salvation. Protestants believe good works are a result of salvation, they don’t cause salvation.

Not by Faith alone!

That is it, no more, no less. Not by Faith Alone. Not by Faith Alone.

It doesn’t matter how you want to redefine the terms and mold them to what you want the text to say.

Not by Faith Alone.

For instance, I have a lot of close friends who are confirmed Catholic. They don’t go to church, they don’t pray, study the Bible, and don’t make a concerted effort to further God’s kingdom. The only time they think about God is when they go to church on Christmas and Easter. They admit that God is nowhere on their minds hardly at all. I’m not deriding them. Two of them are my VERY best friends. But would you not agree their faith is dead? But since they are confirmed, they are saved, correct? This is James’ point.

Salvation is God’s alone. Not for you, me or anyone else to make a declaration that you are saved.

Salvation is God’s alone. Not by Faith Alone.

 

[PRmerger]

Can I say it is wrong for the Catholic Church to have the apocryphal writings in their Bible and to derive doctrine from them?

The Catholic Church has never claimed “to derive doctrine” from the Bible.

That is backwards, drblank.

Rather, the Bible reflects the doctrines and teachings of the CC.

The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

We do not get our beliefs from a book, no matter how holy.

That is something that the Bible never endorses.

 

[PRmerger]

What I have done is study (and continue) God’s Word

But how do you know what is God’s Word?

Answer: you take the CC’s word on it. At least as it applies to the 27 book canon of the NT.

The difference is you blindly follow what the Catholic church tells you to believe

Heh. This is funny.

For you, too, “blindly follow what the CC tells you”, at least as far as the 27 book canon of the NT.

Unless you want to tell us how it is that you know that Hebrews is inspired and the Epistle of Barnabas is not…some *other *way, except by deferring to the authority of the CC?

 

[drblank1]

Reasonably assume?

Who decides whether the degree of doubt that is assigned to each book is enough to dismiss?

Whose authority do you defer in that, drblank, to tell you which authors are not suspect, and which ones are confirmed.

And remember, you do not know who wrote Hebrews.

Yet you consider it inspired (thanks to the authority of the CC, BTW).

If you exclude the apocrypha, you need to exclude Proverbs, and Malachi, which Wiki says, “Thus, there is substantial debate regarding the identity of the book’s author”.

Also, you need to throw out Habakkuk, who “openly questions the wisdom of God”.


[BIBLEDRB]Habakkuk 1:3[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Habakkuk 1:13[/BIBLEDRB]

No where in the Bible is it said we are not able to question God why bad thing happen to us which is what these verses state. On the contrary, these are prayers asking God for clarity. You argument is invalid.

You are partially correct that we do not know for certain who wrote Hebrews, but it is most certainly agreed upon that it was Paul, Luke, or Barnabas. And most agree it is most likely a sermon of Paul’s. It is agreed that Hebrews is an writing of an apostle.

It is universally agreed the apocrypha writers are unknown and written during the silent prophetic age and God spoke exclusively through OT prophets. And since God tells us that the Jews determine OT canon and they universally reject the apocrypha, you are overriding God yourself.

 

[PRmerger]

No where in the Bible is it said we are not able to question God why bad thing happen to us which is what these verses state.

That is circular, drblank.

You cannot use “no where in the Bible is it said” to decide whether something belongs in the Bible…because if it’s in the Bible, then that’s where it is now said.

That would be like saying, “No where in the Bible does it say that we can’t do vain repetitions, therefore Matthew must not be inspired”.

Rather, because it’s in the Bible, then we believe it.

 

[PRmerger]

It is agreed that Hebrews is an writing of an apostle.

Then you are trusting in something OTHER than the Bible, are you not, drblank?

And when you say that “it is agreed”…do you know who did the agreeing on this?

Catholic men.

Catholic bishops, to be exact.

So are you not “blindly following” the decision of these men each and every time you quote from Hebrews as the inspired Word of God?

 

[drblank1]

The Catholic Church has never claimed “to derive doctrine” from the Bible.

That is backwards, drblank.

Rather, the Bible reflects the doctrines and teachings of the CC.

The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

We do not get our beliefs from a book, no matter how holy.

That is something that the Bible never endorses.

And there is the difference. The Reformation recaptured the original faith of the apostles. The NT books were completed in the first century well before the establishment of the RCC church. The tradition of the apostles was the original faith that is now recorded in those 27 books, God’s Holy Word. Yes, I will take my faith from God’s mouth, not of men. The apostles were only the instruments of God to convey the faith of Jesus Christ. Yes, I go with God.

 

[PRmerger]

And since God tells us that the Jews determine OT canon and they **universally **reject the apocrypha, you are overriding God yourself.

Do you not believe that Greek Jews are Jews, drblank?

For it was they who codified the “apocrphya”. It certainly didn’t come from Catholics in the centuries before Christ came.

Can you tell me who you believe put the “apocrphya” together into the Septuagint, if it was not Jews?

Clearly, you have been fooled into believing some words of men telling you that the Jews “universally” reject the apocrypha. If you just thought about it, you would have to realize that someone had to write these books, someone had to put them together into a scroll…
and if you believe that these men weren’t Jews who worshipped the One God, who were they?

 

[drblank1]

Then you are trusting in something OTHER than the Bible, are you not, drblank?

And when you say that “it is agreed”…do you know who did the agreeing on this?

Catholic men.

Catholic bishops, to be exact.

So are you not “blindly following” the decision of these men each and every time you quote from Hebrews as the inspired Word of God?

Nope!!! I do read the early catholic writings on the subject. I also read Roman Catholic writing as well as Protestant. When you study the Word, look at criteria that determines God’s spoken Word, that is not blindly following anyone. I guess you could say and am blindly following the Holy Spirit on the subject.

 

[PRmerger]

The apostles were only the instruments of God to convey the faith of Jesus Christ.

True. And then they passed this charism on to their successors, the Catholic bishops.

Now, if you could give me the book, chapter and verse that says that everything the apostles wrote was put down in a book called the Bible, that would secure your case.

Otherwise, what you are doing is following the words of a fallible man that you believed. He probably heard it from another fallible man, who heard it from another fallible man…but no one ever read, “Everything we believe about God was written down in the Bible” in a single page of the Bible.

You have been following a man-made tradition.

Now, 'tis true that all Scripture is inspired by God, but that is not the same thing as saying that everything we believe is found ONLY in the Bible.

What is in the Bible makes us equipped for good works, but not for knowing everything we need to know about what God has revealed.

That comes from the Church.

 

[drblank1]

Not by Faith alone!

That is it, no more, no less. Not by Faith Alone. Not by Faith Alone.

It doesn’t matter how you want to redefine the terms and mold them to what you want the text to say.

Not by Faith Alone.

Salvation is God’s alone. Not for you, me or anyone else to make a declaration that you are saved.

Salvation is God’s alone. Not by Faith Alone.

I agree with you 100%. Salvation is from God alone. And only will He give us that gift if we only believe in Jesus Christ his son. There is nothing for us to do. Nothing except believe in His son as our Savior. Just like the thief on the cross next to Jesus. He did nothing but believe in Jesus. And Jesus told him, He would see the thief in paradise. The thief had zero opportunity to perform any good work (baptism or any other sacrament), yet he was saved.