Protestants & the Bible

[William_Scott]

You can attest to it from your own experience?

may I suggest reading the following http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/calvin-on-self-authentication/

I will read this when I have a chance. However, while I wouldn’t generally appeal to self-authentication alone, it’s a Scriptural teaching that “the sheep know the Shepherd’s voice”–and it would be unreasonable to presume that this plays no role in the canon.

The 73 books ( 27 NT, 46 OT books) were NOT listed as canonical, as in completed, till a.d.382. The canon went through development before that date. After that date, it stayed the same. No matter what Luther the heretic did with his bible, the canon of scripture remained the same, 73 books.

This is incorrect, the Council of Carthage was a local council (almost certainly influenced heavily by Augustine) and did not universally define the Canon for the Church. It was not until Trent that Rome authoritatively included the Deuterocanon as part of the Old Testament Canon.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

ou can attest to it from your own experience?

may I suggest reading the following http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/calvin-on-self-authentication/

William_Scott:

I will read this when I have a chance.

Good

William_Scott:

However, while I wouldn’t generally appeal to self-authentication alone, it’s a Scriptural teaching that “the sheep know the Shepherd’s voice”–and it would be unreasonable to presume that this plays no role in the canon.

Obviously one has to be careful using analogies as wooden literal meanings.

• What shepherd are schismatics, and heretics following?
• Does a shepherd have 40,000 different competing instructions and voices going out from him/her to the flock?

steve-b:

The 73 books ( 27 NT, 46 OT books) were NOT listed as canonical, as in completed, till a.d.382. The canon went through development before that date. After that date, it stayed the same. No matter what Luther the heretic did with his bible, the canon of scripture remained the same, 73 books.

William_Scott:

This is incorrect, the Council of Carthage was a local council (almost certainly influenced heavily by Augustine) and did not universally define the Canon for the Church. It was not until Trent that Rome authoritatively included the Deuterocanon as part of the Old Testament Canon.

• The council of Rome, a.d. 382 under Pope Damasus I, a local council decreed the canon as 73 books.
• the councils of Hippo and Carthage were also local councils and affirmed the canon. of 73 books
• The council’s of Florence and Trent were ecumenical councils. They also affirmed the canon. as 73 books.

So since 382, the canon has not changed

 

[William_Scott]

Obviously one has to be careful using analogies as wooden literal meanings.

You mean like the RC Interpretation of “Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood”–sorry, I couldn’t help it. [Actually, I agree that the Scriptures teach that feeding on Christ’s Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist is “generally necessary for Salvation” (as the 1604 Anglican Book of Common Prayer Catechism teaches)–though not absolutely necessary, as you no doubt agree–I just don’t believe that transubstantiation is logically necessitated by this truth].

* What shepherd are schismatics, and heretics following?

• Does a shepherd have 40,000 different competing instructions and voices going out from him/her to the flock?

• 
  That’s real ecumenical of you Steve Christ gave counsel to John and James when they sought to quash “schismatics” in the Gospel, Mark 9:38-41. Also, there is far more doctrinal unity between the vast majority of Bible believing Protestants than there is between the conservative and liberal factions of the Roman Catholic Church (btw, I like the conservative faction of the Roman Catholic Church better–and as you know, we line up with you more than your liberal Roman Catholic brethren do).

 

[William_Scott]

* The council of Rome, a.d. 382 under Pope Damasus I, a local council decreed the canon as 73 books.

• the councils of Hippo and Carthage were also local councils and affirmed the canon. of 73 books

The councils of Hippo and Carthage were of course overseen by St. Augustine. On the other hand, there are questions as to whether the canon associated with council of Rome was actually promulgated at the Council of Rome. In either case, these were all local councils as you note. On the other hand, the Council of Laodicea from 364 clearly omits the Deuterocanon (except for the Letter of Jeremiah and Baruch that were often considered part of the corpus of Jeremiah at that time, as noted above).

Right up to the Council of Trent itself there was a great deal of diversity in opinion on the Canon. Here is Cardinal Cajetan, the leading representative of Rome contra Luther, on the Canon:
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

I really am gone for the next while from this thread. Have a good day all.

 

[Dhc8_Type]

Why not start at verse 1 where you see Paul describing what a good pastor is.

 

[PrisonerOfChrist]

Many Protestants are willing to accept the Catholic Church got it right. In this case they got it right, just like it got it right about the doctrine on the divinity of Christ. But unfortunately, they also believe the Church went astray and got other things wrong due to the corruption of men.

It comes down to authority. Who gets to say what is right and wrong…

Perhaps we can engage with Protestants on the subject of the the dogmas of the Church is not right or wrong depending on the holiness of the members of the magisterium but on the authority given to them by Christ

 

[steve-b]

Obviously one has to be careful using analogies as wooden literal meanings.

You mean like the RC Interpretation of “Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood”–sorry, I couldn’t help it. [Actually, I agree that the Scriptures teach that feeding on Christ’s Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist is “generally necessary for Salvation” (as the 1604 Anglican Book of Common Prayer Catechism teaches)–though not absolutely necessary, as you no doubt agree–I just don’t believe that transubstantiation is logically necessitated by this truth].

The easy answer to this is

We know where the Anglicans came from. Henry VIII. A heretic and murderer. Great start to a “Church”!

HOWEVER

The Church Jesus established and He said He will build on Peter and those in union with Peter, is sitting at the table with Him. The beginning of the Catholic Church was there at the last supper. The same Church today, 2000 yrs later, with pope Francis, 266th successor to St Peter at the helm.

steve-b:

• What shepherd are the schismatics, and heretics following?
• Does a shepherd have 40,000 different competing instructions and voices going out from him/her to the flock?

William_Scott:

That’s real ecumenical of you Steve

I only followed up on your point, “the sheep hear the shepherd’s voice”.

William_Scott:

Christ gave counsel to John and James when they sought to quash “schismatics” in the Gospel, Mark 9:38-41.

That wasn’t schism.

Jesus was not going to stop good actions by others just because it wasn’t done by James and John etc.

William_Scott:

Also, there is far more doctrinal unity between the vast majority of Bible believing Protestants than there is between the conservative and liberal factions of the Roman Catholic Church (btw, I like the conservative faction of the Roman Catholic Church better–and as you know, we line up with you more than your liberal Roman Catholic brethren do).

Let’s not wade into indifferentism or into latitudinarianism

 

[Hodos]

I am engaged with a Protestant regarding their refusal to accept Sacred Tradition and the role of the Magisterium. Here is what I see as a Protestant dilemma. They believe in sola scriptura. But the Bible was compiled near the end of the 4th century by the Magisterium of the Church taking account Sacred Tradition that the writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Thus the three legged stool is completed, without all three legs the stool falls. So if a Protestant accepts the Bible as the inspired Word of God he must also accept Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Magesterium, correct? Denying Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium by Protestants means interpreting scripture is by fallible human means, which is heresy. Am I correct in this assertion?

The big issue that you are having here is that you misunderstand what Protestants mean by Sola Scriptura, and to be fair, many Protestants are not well taught on what Sola Scriptura is or means either, which adds to the confusion. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura in the context of the Reformation means that the Scriptures are the sole infallible means of faith and doctrine for the Church. It was a viewpoint in opposition to what was being enforced at the time, namely that when tradition or papal authority conflicts with the clear meaning of scripture, scripture lost. Luther said, no, when papal decree or tradition are in conflict with scripture, scripture wins. It does so because scripture provides the record of the God-breathed revelation from God to man of his son. By its nature as being God’s Word, it is infallible. So when you think of Sola Scriptura, you have to look at it as the authority of God’s Word against whatever other authority you would place in opposition to it.

 

[Hodos]

I am engaged with a Protestant regarding their refusal to accept Sacred Tradition and the role of the Magisterium. Here is what I see as a Protestant dilemma. They believe in sola scriptura. But the Bible was compiled near the end of the 4th century by the Magisterium of the Church taking account Sacred Tradition that the writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Thus the three legged stool is completed, without all three legs the stool falls. So if a Protestant accepts the Bible as the inspired Word of God he must also accept Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Magesterium, correct? Denying Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium by Protestants means interpreting scripture is by fallible human means, which is heresy. Am I correct in this assertion?

Continuation…What Sola Scriptura is not is a rejection of all other authority such as tradition or the teaching function of the Church. A knowledgeable Protestant would readily agree that both of these sources of authority have their place in the Church; however, these are in submission to God’s Word, not above it. The difference between the Catholic three-legged stool and the Protestant concept of Sola Scriptura is that Sola Scriptura is addressing what one does when these things are in opposition to one another. The Protestant answer is that when papal authority or sacred tradition commands obedience to a doctrine that is contradicted by scripture, scripture is the rule of faith and norms that wins the dispute.

 

[Baseball-Guy]

Thanks Jadon, that does help.

 

[Pattylt]

But aren’t you assuming that you understand the clear meaning of scripture? What happens when it isn’t clear or can have multiple meanings? Aren’t all the various denominations of Protestant over interpretations of certain passages a demonstration of the problem with scripture alone?

 

[Gingersnaps4]

I also wonder how you (general you) deal with the differences in “clear meaning of scripture” among various denominations. For instance, the original reformers would be aghast at much of the theology/translations of modern Protestantism. That shows that the meaning Isnt that clear at all with no Authority to translate.

 

[Thom18]

The faith of Protestants is founded on the 66 books of the Bible.

The faith of Catholics is grounded in Scripture’s 73 books but founded on (and by!) Christ.

 

[exnihilo]

Protestants actually have a problem on day one of the Christian Faith. There not only wasn’t any agreement on Old Testament books there wasn’t a New Testament at all. Many of the Epistles and Gospels are thought not to have been written until over twenty years later. How could there have been Christiansif we rely on the Bible and there was no Bible?

Protestants may respond that they didn’t need the Bible then because there were living Apostles. Of course you can then ask where in the Bible it says that once the Apostles die they should rely on just the Bible. It isn’t in there. That is just asserted.

Regardless we know conclusively that the Bible (or New Testament) isn’t actually essential to being able to live the Christian Faith. We know that because early Christians could be Christians based solely on the authority of the Church. So we know beyond any doubt that it is not only possible but the way the Church was set up for the faithful to get the Faith from the authority of men. Since there is nothing anywhere indicating that should change why would anyone think it would?

 

[deMontfort]

Baseball-Guy:

I am engaged with a Protestant regarding their refusal to accept Sacred Tradition and the role of the Magisterium. Here is what I see as a Protestant dilemma. They believe in sola scriptura. But the Bible was compiled near the end of the 4th century by the Magisterium of the Church taking account Sacred Tradition that the writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Thus the three legged stool is completed, without all three legs the stool falls. So if a Protestant accepts the Bible as the inspired Word of God he must also accept Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Magesterium, correct? Denying Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium by Protestants means interpreting scripture is by fallible human means, which is heresy. Am I correct in this assertion?

The big issue that you are having here is that you misunderstand what Protestants mean by Sola Scriptura, and to be fair, many Protestants are not well taught on what Sola Scriptura is or means either, which adds to the confusion. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura in the context of the Reformation means that the Scriptures are the sole infallible means of faith and doctrine for the Church. It was a viewpoint in opposition to what was being enforced at the time, namely that when tradition or papal authority conflicts with the clear meaning of scripture, scripture lost. Luther said, no, when papal decree or tradition are in conflict with scripture, scripture wins. It does so because scripture provides the record of the God-breathed revelation from God to man of his son. By its nature as being God’s Word, it is infallible. So when you think of Sola Scriptura, you have to look at it as the authority of God’s Word against whatever other authority you would place in opposition to it.

One quibble: The Bible is inerrant NOT infallible. People are infallible (or not), books are inerrant.

 

[deMontfort]

Continuation…What Sola Scriptura is not is a rejection of all other authority such as tradition or the teaching function of the Church. A knowledgeable Protestant would readily agree that both of these sources of authority have their place in the Church; however, these are in submission to God’s Word, not above it. The difference between the Catholic three-legged stool and the Protestant concept of Sola Scriptura is that Sola Scriptura is addressing what one does when these things are in opposition to one another. The Protestant answer is that when papal authority or sacred tradition commands obedience to a doctrine that is contradicted by scripture, scripture is the rule of faith and norms that wins the dispute.

^^^^^ This pretty much explains it.

 

[Hodos]

But aren’t you assuming that you understand the clear meaning of scripture? What happens when it isn’t clear or can have multiple meanings? Aren’t all the various denominations of Protestant over interpretations of certain passages a demonstration of the problem with scripture alone?

So, we can all agree that there are passages of scripture which can be difficult. That being said, we have the ability to read the passage in context and derive the meaning when we use sound hermeneutical principles. But even conceding that some passages of scripture are more difficult than others, the meaning of scripture can normally be taken at face value. So when the Bible says, God created the heavens and the earth, it doesn’t take some deep philosophical pondering of the text to understand that the Bible is communicating that God created the heavens and the earth. When the Bible says, You shall not murder, you can take that at face value. The assumption that the Bible was written to be a mysterious document is contradictory to the purpose for which it was written, namely to communicate God’s revelation of law and gospel.

 

[Hodos]

I also wonder how you (general you) deal with the differences in “clear meaning of scripture” among various denominations. For instance, the original reformers would be aghast at much of the theology/translations of modern Protestantism. That shows that the meaning Isnt that clear at all with no Authority to translate.

You would need to provide an example of what you mean. There is no specificity to what you are saying that I can provide a meaningful response to.

 

[Hodos]

One quibble: The Bible is inerrant NOT infallible. People are infallible (or not), books are inerrant.

God is infallible, and so when he communicates to man, it is inerrant AND infallible. That is what I meant if that helps to clarify.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

The original reformers all believed in the Real Presence, regenerative baptism, the communion of saints, veneration of the Blessed Mother, etc. so they most likely wouldn’t even categorize many modern denominations as Christian.