protestants. why are you the odd one out?

[Anna_Scott]

You too? I can’t tell you how many books I have on my docket, I’m just starting Steve Ray’s Gosple of John bible study/commentary. My approch with this one will be to read a chapter out of the Douay, then again perhaps out of the NAB, then check Haydocks commentary and make notes, then check Ray’s line for line study/commentary and answer all his questions and in there some where check Faith Database for all references to curious verses made by the fathers and referenced everywhere…

More over I bought my first loose leaf notebook since college (freshman year too, I stopped buying them after that) and I plan on hand writing all this in decent hand writing as my 3 mo old puppy ate my laptop charger and I don’t want to have to study in my office with my desktop. It’s going to take months to get through the Gosple of John! After that, Romans with a CSS guided study at church (actually convinced an agnostic friend to come with me! how cool is that!) and somewhere in there I want to read the Pope’s “Jesus of Nazereth”. And of course I have to catch up on the likes of Apologia Pro Vita Sua, The Catholic Contraversy (a collection of St. Fancis DeSale’s pamphlets) and other such books.



P.S.
Now that you have the DC’s, I’d recommend checking out the Wisdom Books (going to teach these to my 6th graders next week)

usccb.org/nab/bible/wisdom.htm

I can relate! I have books everywhere–some I have purchased, and some from the library–then I supplement with online sources.

I’m really sorry your puppy ate your laptop charger.

Anna

 

[Radical]

That’s a really vague statement. Existed when? Existed after the canon was established or before?

How established? By local synod? By conduct? Where established? West? East?

And who had these opinions?

a good number of those who fell within orthodoxy.

Having spent several years attending Protestant churches, I think you will find that many Protestants disagree with your idea that every member of Christ’s Church has the authority to determine the contents of the Bible.

we might mean different things by the use of “authority”. Do we agree that every person has the authority as to how he will answer the question (for himself) of, “Who is Jesus?” Between the questions of “Who is Jesus?” and “What is the canon?” the former is the greater and the latter is the lesser. It seems odd that some would think that each Christian possesses the authority wrt the greater question, but not wrt to the lesser question of the two. That being said most Protestants would readily acknowledge that they do not possess the knowledge or expertise to provide a good assessment of the lesser question and are quite prepared to rely on others. Further, I know of no Protestant who would suggest that these sorts of decisions should be made in isolation and w/o (name removed by moderator)ut from others. A committee effort is both desired and expected. I just don’t see why the committee is limited to the ECFs until it is established that they had superior knowledge and expertise.

I mean, it’s obvious–if everyone felt that they were the sole arbiter of the canon for themselves, there would be a lot more variety in Protestant Bibles than there is. If there can be at least five different views on the subject of baptism, I cannot believe that everyone independently agrees on the canon, without it being because they don’t believe that they have the authority to change it.

I guess you could say that a certain authority follows the required knowledge and expertise, but that is not the authority I had in mind.

I’m not saying that no Protestants agree with you, but at least in that one respect, I think you are not with the mainstream of either mainline or evangelical Protestants.

Most do not even ponder the question, they simply accept what they are fed.

 

[JonNC]

thank you. and because of lutherans such as yourself. i am learning more about luther than i already knew. and that is on a positive note, not a negative. Peace

Thanks for the kind words. I’ve learned a great bit of positive things about the Catholic Church. I believe it is how we will grow together.

Jon

 

[benidict]

Benidict,

I will take your reading suggestion. I can handle 2 chapters. I’m really quite overwhelmed with my studies. Can’t seem to read fast enough. Just started reading The early Church by Henry Chadwick. :coffeeread: oops, I’m off topic already.

God’s Peace,
Anna

hi anna. i get the overwhealmed on studying part. me too! lol! but no, your never off topic. feel free to add anything you want. Peace

 

[rev_kevin]

hi reve kevin. is it the Jews who dispute this, or the Christians? Peace

Judiasm

 

[benidict]

Judiasm

thank you rev. appreciate it. also i know that throughout their history, the Jewish people have considered some books inspired, such as the zoar. and at a later date,actually quite recently decided they were not. and that some Jews consider only the Torah to be inspired and not the rest of the tanak. i would love for some people who are Jewish to come and give their views on what they consider inspired from the tanakh. Peace

 

[rev_kevin]

thank you rev. appreciate it. also i know that throughout their history, the Jewish people have considered some books inspired, such as the zoar. and at a later date,actually quite recently decided they were not. and that some Jews consider only the Torah to be inspired and not the rest of the tanak. i would love for some people who are Jewish to come and give their views on what they consider inspired from the tanakh. Peace

I also think it would be nice of some Jewish people to give us their take or their views on this.

 

[Splinker]

I’d say that all the TaNaKh is sacred and that this belief is shared by the great majority of Jews.

 

[rev_kevin]

I’d say that all the TaNaKh is sacred and that this belief is shared by the great majority of Jews.

Thank you for sharing this with us.

 

[benidict]

I’d say that all the TaNaKh is sacred and that this belief is shared by the great majority of Jews.

hi spinkler. thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. is there any debate about this between the 3 elements of Judaism. orthodox, conservative, and liberal? i have had the fortunate opportunity to actually attend sabbath torah studies in the past, and they were fascinating. not like a Christian bible study at all. alot more to it. the Hebrew language is amazing. God Blessings to you. Peace

 

[Radical]

Quite True which is yet another reason to believe that Christ, in His goodness provided us a way to deteremine what is the best and truest way to view and use these books.

This is a reasonable assumption and a matter of faith…the Protestant might word a similarly reasonable assumption as: Christ, in His goodness ensured that fallible men (through the guidance of the Holy Spirit) sufficiently/infallibly deteremined the canon of the NT so that the church would possess the fullness of the truth…one can make that assumption w/o needing to assume that these fallible men did any other infallible thing.

Interesting claim. So it is your contention that you, or I may include or exclude any book from the bible that we choose because, “all are equal members of Christ’s church”. Is this really what you are saying?

I would look at it more from the other end, that is, because all are equal members of Christ’s church, no group had the authority to make a binding decision that must be followed by all who come later. It is not that we possess their authority as much as it is that they share our lack of authority

My guess is that your contention here is NOT the view of the “Typical” Protestant.

wouldn’t be the first time

I believe that I shall put your proposition to the test by posting your statement with a poll.

which proposition? That the ECFs erred in some of their collective decisions? That the ECFs possibly erred in setting the canon of the NT? That certain ECFs possibly erred by including the apocrypha in the canon? B/c of the possibility of error, one should assess what they did?

As far as Jerome is concerned. This is another common argument brought up by protestants. That is the fact that certain Churchmen had issues with, and wrote about their concerns re: the canon. Of course they fail to note that Jerome and these other Churchmen submitted their own wills to the Will of God expressed in His Church.

the other Churchmen really did that? So the likes of Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Origen all submitted and accepted the apocrypha?

Jerome might have had concerns about the Deurtero’s but He DID translate them and included them in the Vulgate.

Did he also include any caveats, reservations or qualifications? I am not so much concerned with Jerome’s submission as I am with the soundness of his earlier rejection…I might note that Galileo also submitted (and in the process publicly abandoned the correct position). Did Jerome do what he did b/c his initial reasons lacked merit or b/c of pressure?

If you want to get down to this type of dissention, then you must say, “How do we know Christ even existed to make these promises?”

That is indeed where one might end up…but I don’t think we should fear the pursuit of truth.

 

[Radical]

Continuing…

JRKH:

As to the matter of succession and the passing on of authority.
Christ Told His apostles the things you point out, that they had the authority to bind and loose,…

and the ECFs tended to view the binding and loosing as a thing related to forgiveness alone…kinda odd if that was the impartation of an authority wrt doctrine

He also told them to go and to teach the whole world. He told them that all authority had been given to Him in heaven and on earth. An authority He shared with them by the laying on of hands, breathing on them and by the imposition of the Holy Spirit.

Please provide the verse where is states that he shared his full authority with the apostles.

The Apostles then using the authority given them by Christ himself appointed others in the expanding Church to teach and spread the gospel and minister to the growing Church.

Please provide the verse(s) where is states that they passed on their full authority to the next generation

When the apostles died and went to Christ, the authority did not die with them but remained in The Church in the men who had been given the apostolic authority in direct line from Christ.

The apostles weren’t Christ’s equal, and the subsequent appointees weren’t the apostles’ equals, yet you are saying that some authority (which remained unchanged?) was passed down the line notwithstanding the diminishing status of the receipients. Please provide an express verse to establish that claim

This is so because Christ said it is so.

excellent…if he said it, then point to it.

AND because history teaches us that this is how the Church passed it down to us.

well history tells us that eventually certain leaders claimed such in order to justify the authority that they claimed for themselves.

However the Church councils have the advantage of bringing many “opinions” together where they can be hashed out prayerfuly and carefully face to face, thus providing the best way to determine the true will of the Holy Spirit.

and us moderns somehow can’t access the Holy Spirit in an equal manner?

You mentioned earlier that the Protestant fathers" changed the canon because, “Their review of the evidence caused them to conclude that these books should not be used to establish doctrine”. May I ask at what conference the “protestant fathers” determined this?

we had a barbeque at my place last Friday

May I further ask how reliable this determination is considering that the “Protestant Fathers” never DID agree on just what doctrine should be in a “reformed” church?

well, if the first thing we did was to pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit and if we were convinced of our own ability to make an infallible determination, then I guess we would have the potential to be as reliable as a council of ECFs…it might just come down to whether you can establish that the ECFs possessed an authority through apostolic succession that isn’t enjoyed by protestants (and that is where that self-authentication comes in)

Instead of coming together in Chrisitan Unity, and humbly submitting their opinions to the good of The Church, these men split asunder each forming their own camp of followers and each just as oposed to the other as they were oposed to the Catholic Church.

Yeah, they had very strong feelings about the matters at issue which caused them to do some very evil things, but I don’t see how submitting to error is for the good of the Church…clearly we differ on whether your church enjoys any special authority that protected it from error…and we are likely equally confident in our respective positions, but to show that I don’t hold that against you, I am prepared to extend an invitation to you to attend the next barbeque council of Protestant fathers to be held at my place (BYOB)…there will be burning of steaks, but no burning at stakes.

Cheers

 

[Izdaari]

True that few if any Protestant churches recognize the Deuterocanonical books as canon. But I am Protestant only by definition, not being Catholic or Orthodox, and I’ll read those extra books if I want to. I have several Bibles that contain them.

 

[benidict]

True that few if any Protestant churches recognize the Deuterocanonical books as canon. But I am Protestant only by definition, not being Catholic or Orthodox, and I’ll read those extra books if I want to. I have several Bibles that contain them.

hi izdaari. this is interesting. and do you believe that they are inspired or just a very good study guide for the Christian life? i think its great you read them. it would have been nice growing up in my protestant home, if my pastor, or parents would have introduced me to these books, instead of just making them a side note. they are a real blessing. i appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. Peace

 

[JRKH]

I believe that I shall put your proposition to the test by posting your statement with a poll.

Forgive me for not responding to everything in your post as of yet. My time is restricted right now.

As for this part, I have addressed it in this thread.

As you willnote from the thread and poll results the majority of your fellow protestants do not agree with you that the “typical protestant”, as an individual, has the right to pick and choose which books are inspired.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Continuing…

and the ECFs tended to view the binding and loosing as a thing related to forgiveness alone…kinda odd if that was the impartation of an authority wrt doctrine

Please provide the verse where is states that he shared his full authority with the apostles.

Please provide the verse(s) where is states that they passed on their full authority to the next generation
The apostles weren’t Christ’s equal, and the subsequent appointees weren’t the apostles’ equals, yet you are saying that some authority (which remained unchanged?) was passed down the line notwithstanding the diminishing status of the receipients. Please provide an express verse to establish that claim
excellent…if he said it, then point to it.

well history tells us that eventually certain leaders claimed such in order to justify the authority that they claimed for themselves.

I began to try and arrange and organize matters for you, but find that I am not up to the task due to a lack of ability on my part and also time constaints. Besides, others have already put together much of this, as I am sure you are aware.
Here is just one source.

and us moderns somehow can’t access the Holy Spirit in an equal manner?

we had a barbeque at my place last Friday
well, if the first thing we did was to pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit and if we were convinced of our own ability to make an infallible determination, then I guess we would have the potential to be as reliable as a council of ECFs…it might just come down to whether you can establish that the ECFs possessed an authority through apostolic succession that isn’t enjoyed by protestants (and that is where that self-authentication comes in)

From the earliest days of the Church, there have been disagreements. Different regions of, and individuals in, the Church would make some determination that other regions or individuals would disagree with. If we take your “barbeque” as an example, I and my community have a similar barbeque and reach a different determination on some of the same matters that you discussed at your barbeque.
You and I, find we are at “loggerheads” on this. We cannot figure out which barbeque got it right. So - What do we do? We hold an even bigger barbeque, pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, review the whole matter again, and determine a single right view. That view might be yours. That view might be mine. OR That view might be something akin to “both” our views but with a deeper theological understanding found by each side. Now, once our big barbeque (basically involving everyone) comes to a decision that decision stands as the benchmark for everyone forever as being the “spirit guided” correct answer. It is not my view. It is not your view. It is the "Church’s view as revealed throguh prayerful and councilior reflection.
This is what the Church seeks to do by debate, writings, councils etc. Not to impose “Top down” rules, but to determine, prayerfully, what is correct.

Yeah, they had very strong feelings about the matters at issue which caused them to do some very evil things, but I don’t see how submitting to error is for the good of the Church…

This is a good question, and I will refer you to the masters own instructions in this regard…
When Jesus was teaching in Matthew about the Jewish Law and the interpretations thereof, He sternly reprimanded the Jewish leadership and He did so publicly, but what did He tell the Faithful Jewish “laymen”? He told them:

“all that they tell you, do and observe” because “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat”. (Matthew 23:2-3)
Now we both know what Jesus thought about the Scribes and Pharasees. Yet He tells the people to obey them in their teachings. He does not say - ‘each person must weigh what they teach to see if there is error’. He says do and observe all that they tell you.
Something to prayerfully consider - don’t you think??

clearly we differ on whether your church enjoys any special authority that protected it from error…and we are likely equally confident in our respective positions, but to show that I don’t hold that against you, I am prepared to extend an invitation to you to attend the next barbeque council of Protestant fathers to be held at my place (BYOB)…there will be burning of steaks, but no burning at stakes.

Cheers

When such barbeque occurs - whereby the Protestant leaders come together and determine which of all of the divergent and sometimes contradictory protestant docrines are correct, - we, as catholics will be happy to send a delegation in response to your kind invitation.

It will be a great day indeed when our seperated bretheren come to understand that disagreements must be prayerfully resolved and unity maintained instead of disagreements being grounds for further splintering. When that day occurs, and the great council you propose ends succesful and in unity, there will indeed be much to celebrate for humility, prayerful reflection, submission to the Will of God in His Church, will all have returned and I firmly believe that should such an enlightenment occur, The church would be restored to a fully Catholic Identity.

Peace
James

 

[Radical]

Here is just one source.

A good source…unless you ask, I won’t plague you with my reasons for thinking that it fails to validate Catholic claims.

From the earliest days of the Church, there have been disagreements…Now, once our big barbeque (basically involving everyone) comes to a decision that decision stands as the benchmark for everyone forever as being the “spirit guided” correct answer. It is not my view. It is not your view. It is the "Church’s view as revealed throguh prayerful and councilior reflection.

The problem with your explanation is that the big barbeque doesn’t involve everyone…in fact it doesn’t involve anywhere near everyone. For example, Christians from the 5th century through to the 21st century (The Later Christians) were given no chance to offer an opinion at Nicea. Nevertheless, the Later Christians are supposedly forever bound by the decisions of the early councils…made with the prejudices of those ancient cultures.

This is what the Church seeks to do by debate, writings, councils etc. Not to impose “Top down” rules, but to determine, prayerfully, what is correct.

It is virtually impossible for prideful men to avoid imposing “Top Down” rules, and I don’t think the Catholic Church has succeeded. In any event, what you have is “Time Down” rules…whatever has been declared previously cannot be undone or reviewed, only “developed” and although a development or two has managed something close a 180 degree switch, there is only so much hope one can have for “developments”. This “Time Down” situation results in the ECFs (being the top) and making Top Down rules for those who follow later in time.

This is a good question, and I will refer you to the masters own instructions in this regard…
When Jesus was teaching in Matthew about the Jewish Law and the interpretations thereof, He sternly reprimanded the Jewish leadership and He did so publicly, but what did He tell the Faithful Jewish “laymen”? He told them:

“all that they tell you, do and observe” because “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat”. (Matthew 23:2-3)
Now we both know what Jesus thought about the Scribes and Pharasees. Yet He tells the people to obey them in their teachings. He does not say - ‘each person must weigh what they teach to see if there is error’. He says do and observe all that they tell you.
Something to prayerfully consider - don’t you think??

Agreed and when one prayerfully considers the matter one should not take those verses in isolation and should note:

a) in verses 16-22 of that same chapter Jesus corrects a teaching of theirs wrt swearing…JRKH, do you really think that by verses 2 and 3 Christ expected his audience to continue to obey the teaching of the teachers of the law and the Pharisees (in regard to swearing) and to disregard his own correction?
b) in Mark 2:23-3:3 Christ and his disciples did two unlawful things ( according to the teachers of the law and the Pharisees) by picking some heads of grain and by healing on the Sabbath. JRKH, do you really think that by Matt 23: 2 and 3 Christ expected his disciples to continue to obey the teaching of the teachers of the law and the Pharisees (wrt the Sabbath) and disregard his own example?
c) look at an apostle’s recognition of the respect due to a high priest (at Acts 23:5) and the apostles utter disobedience to the command of the teachers of the law and the Pharisees given at Acts 4:21-22. There is both recognition of authority and disregard for it.

I could give other examples, but the examples of Christ and of the apostles given in scripture do not support always obeying the command from Moses’s seat and never weighing the command to see if it is in error. Just as God in the body of Christ could correct and override an erroneous teaching from the chair of Moses, so too, God’s Spirit could correct and override an erroneous teaching from the chair of Peter (if such a chair existed). By and large we are to obey those in authority…but it is hardly an absolute.

When such barbeque occurs - whereby the Protestant leaders come together and determine which of all of the divergent and sometimes contradictory protestant docrines are correct, - we, as catholics will be happy to send a delegation in response to your kind invitation.

Unfortunately, with the Vatican’s present mindset, I doubt that the delegation would participate…for to do so would be to treat the Protestants as equals. The Catholic Church isn’t interested in a unity that results from a mutual recognition of equal standing before God. The Catholic Church is only interested in a unity that results from others recognizing the Catholic Church’s claim to a superior standing before God.

As between Protestants, Protestant churches have already undone much of the divisions between them and have acheived a great amount of unity. In this small corner of the world, evangelical Protestants have largely realized that what matters is how one answers the question, “Who do you say Christ is?” and how one responds when one sees a neighbour lying injured beside the road. It has been understood that how one answers that question and how one responds to that situation should be exactly the same whether one is Calvinist or Arminian, whether one is a Charismatic or a cessationist, or whether one is a dispensationalist or an amillennialist etc. It is about circumcism of the heart and not about precise doctrine. You made a claim of Protestant “chaos”, but here conflict between Protestant denominations has largely disappeared and an attitude of liberty and charity with respect to non-essentials prevails. It is about what is essential for a circumcism of the heart and that realization makes a lot of stuff not so essential.

 

[JonNC]

=Radical;6568073]

Unfortunately, with the Vatican’s present mindset, I doubt that the delegation would participate…for to do so would be to treat the Protestants as equals. The Catholic Church isn’t interested in a unity that results from a mutual recognition of equal standing before God. The Catholic Church is only interested in a unity that results from others recognizing the Catholic Church’s claim to a superior standing before God.

I feel like the Vatican has dialogued with Lutherans in a decent and respectful manner.

As between Protestants, Protestant churches have already undone much of the divisions between them and have acheived a great amount of unity. In this small corner of the world, evangelical Protestants have largely realized that what matters is how one answers the question, “Who do you say Christ is?” and how one responds when one sees a neighbour lying injured beside the road. It has been understood that how one answers that question and how one responds to that situation should be exactly the same whether one is Calvinist or Arminian, whether one is a Charismatic or a cessationist, or whether one is a dispensationalist or an amillennialist etc. It is about circumcism of the heart and not about precise doctrine. You made a claim of Protestant “chaos”, but here conflict between Protestant denominations has largely disappeared and an attitude of liberty and charity with respect to non-essentials prevails. It is about what is essential for a circumcism of the heart and that realization makes a lot of stuff not so essential.

I would be interested in knowing which Protestants you are speaking of. I know, my froend, what your position on th real presence is. That, to Lutherans, is a critical essential, as is a sacremental view of Baptism.
I don’t buy what James says about Protestant chaos, because that would presume that Protestant is/was a single Church. For me, Augsburg is, for the most part, essential.

Jon

 

[Radical]

I feel like the Vatican has dialogued with Lutherans in a decent and respectful manner.

It is one thing to dialogue with a view to laying out common ground, it is quite another to lay out the terms for actual unification

I would be interested in knowing which Protestants you are speaking of.

Pretty well any evangelical church in western Canada. I am rather old, so I have had the opportunity to visit quite a variety. There is a saying here that if you want to see what the evangelical church here will be like in 10-20 years from now, look at the evangelical church in Europe, and if you want to see what the evangelical church here looked like 10-20 years ago, look at the evangelical church in the US.

I know, my froend, what your position on th real presence is. That, to Lutherans, is a critical essential, as is a sacremental view of Baptism.

I have attended an evangelical Lutheran church here 10 times +/- and note that although their liturgy book (sorry don’t know the proper term) speaks clearly of a RP, they do not require it.

 

[TriuneUnity]

It is one thing to dialogue with a view to laying out common ground, it is quite another to lay out the terms for actual unification

Amen to that. The only ones who compromised in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification was the, for lack of a better term, goofy Lutheran World Federation.

I have attended an evangelical Lutheran church here 10 times +/- and note that although their liturgy book (sorry don’t know the proper term) speaks clearly of a RP, they do not require it.

Which Synod? If it was the Canadian version of the ELCA, they don’t require much of anything to participate with them. A pulse is usually sufficient.