Stumbling Block for Protestants? V2

[adf417]

Just because something did not error, does not mean it cannot error. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

Nobody disagrees with this statement but until you explain how you KNOW it did not error then the possibility still remains that it could have. Do you not agree?

 

[SteveVH]

Just because something did not error, does not mean it cannot error. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

Then please give me your understanding of how the Church, out of over 400 documents that were considered, picked 27 texts as the inspired, inerrant word of God? Why is it that you accept these exact 27 texts as the inspired word of God and not leave open the possibility that they left one out or added one that was not inspired?

On what basis do you come to an agreement with the Catholic Church that they chose the correct texts? What is the measure you use in concluding that the Church got it right, this one time? To what authority do you defer? Your own?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

See post #14, with the understanding that you will likely be disappointed with my rather Lutheran/Eastern/pre-Tridentine response.

Absolutely true. I’ll ask another way: How do YOU know that Hebrews is inspired? Or Revelation? Or Philemon? (etc.)

 

[steido01]

Then please give me your understanding of how the Church, out of over 400 documents that were considered, picked 27 texts as the inspired, inerrant word of God? Why is it that you accept these exact 27 texts as the inspired word of God and not leave open the possibility that they left one out or added one that was not inspired?

On what basis do you come to an agreement with the Catholic Church that they chose the correct texts? What is the measure you use in concluding that the Church got it right, this one time? To what authority do you defer? Your own?

Nobody disagrees with this statement but until you explain how you KNOW it did not error then the possibility still remains that it could have. Do you not agree?

See posts #20, #13 and #14. Note, again, that I was responding to the fallacious* argument* used by a Roman Catholic poster, I was not necessarily on either ‘side,’ as neither side is particularly fitting for a Lutheran - this will be clear if you read the link contained in post #14.

 

[SteveVH]

See posts #20, #13 and #14. Note, again, that I was responding to the fallacious* argument* used by a Roman Catholic poster, I was not necessarily on either ‘side,’ as neither side is particularly fitting for a Lutheran - this will be clear if you read the link contained in post #14.

None of those posts answer the question. Why don’t you, just to humor me, answer the questions that have been asked? In short, how do you know that the Catholic Church got it right, just this one time? This shouldn’t be that difficult.

 

[steido01]

None of those posts answer the question. Why don’t you, just to humor me, answer the questions that have been asked? In short, how do you know that the Catholic Church got it right, just this one time? This shouldn’t be that difficult.

Steve, please understand that I did not intend to defend how one might “KNOW the Church got it right.” My point was only to burn down the faulty reasoning that had been applied by a previous poster - my apologies for not making that clear enough.

If you’d like me to defend either the Roman Catholic or the protestant position with my own beliefs, again, you’ll be disappointed. Please understand that I’m not being difficult or evasive here, but there is simply no way for a Lutheran to answer your question in the way that you want, as I previously cautioned. It just doesn’t compute to us. We see the issue of canonicity quite differently than either Roman Catholics or protestants. This is noted in the link I provided. I won’t attempt to explain it further, as the writer in the link spoke much more clearly than I ever could: internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view.

Yours in Christ,

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Steve, please understand that I did not intend to defend how one might “KNOW the Church got it right.”

That much was apparent in that your answer didn’t answer the question.
However, do you have an answer?

 

[steido01]

That much was apparent in that your answer didn’t answer the question.
However, do you have an answer?

How can I give an answer to a question that does not exist in Lutheran theology?

At this point, I have explained as best I can.

 

[JonNC]

Absolutely true. I’ll ask another way: How do YOU know that Hebrews is inspired? Or Revelation? Or Philemon? (etc.)

Hebrews and Revelation are interesting books that point out the Lutheran position. We assume them to be inspired, but recognize the level of dispute concerning them, dating all the back to the early Church (Eusebius, for example). that recognition causes us to use them with less certainty regarding doctrine (refer back to Steido’s comment on how we utilize the canon differently than the CC does).

In this way, these two books are loved and valued in our communion, used to support doctrine, used liturgically and in our hymnody.

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

How can I give an answer to a question that does not exist in Lutheran theology?

At this point, I have explained as best I can.

It seems to me that you don’t really have an answer for this.

You can’t have a Bible without a canon, and you can’t have a canon without the Church.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Hebrews and Revelation are interesting books that point out the Lutheran position. We assume them to be inspired, but recognize the level of dispute concerning them, dating all the back to the early Church (Eusebius, for example). that recognition causes us to use them with less certainty regarding doctrine (refer back to Steido’s comment on how we utilize the canon differently than the CC does).

Oh, I see. You are claiming the authority of Tradition to determine the canon. The same source the Catholic Church uses as partial evidence for many of her doctrines. Only, it seems like some things in Tradition are accepted (part of the canon) while others are not (Apostolic Succession, for example).

In this way, these two books are loved and valued in our communion, used to support doctrine, used liturgically and in our hymnody.

So, you use them with lack of certainty to support doctrine?

 

[JonNC]

=FathersKnowBest;11323546]Oh, I see. You are claiming the authority of Tradition to determine the canon. The same source the Catholic Church uses as partial evidence for many of her doctrines. Only, it seems like some things in Tradition are accepted (part of the canon) while others are not (Apostolic Succession, for example).

Of course the Church determines canon, or rule. Why would you think we think otherwise? As Lutherans, we look to the Church as the teaching authority.
AS is a lousy example, since the Lutheran confessions support the Tradition of AS, and many Lutheran synods claim it, often through Anglican lines (Catholic rejection of them notwithstanding). That said, it is our view that Tradition is not equal to scripture, but a witness and reflection of it. So, yes, where Tradition varies from scripture it is not accepted.

So, you use them with lack of certainty to support doctrine?

Take a moment to actually read what I said. Better yet…
internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view

Jon

 

[Contarini]

Then why would you want to isolate Matthew? How about you isolate the Gospel according to John?

Things mentioned only in John are also, from a purely historical point of view, rather dubious. However, the main difference is that John appears to be a genuinely independent version of Jesus’ life. Matt. 16 is, in part, verbally identical to Mark 8. Then we have this additional passage which isn’t in Mark or Luke, which makes a theological point using the word “ecclesia” which occurs only in Matthew among the Gospels. Using normal methods of historical inquiry, this looks like it’s a theological interpretation by Matthew. Most scholars (even pretty conservative ones) would say that there’s a good deal of that in John as well. So I don’t know what you’re getting at.

How about you isolate the Kingdom of Heaven?

Because the Kingdom of Heaven isn’t isolated. It’s a constant theme throughout the Synoptics. No one is “isolating” anything that isn’t already “isolated” in the texts.

Or, how about you isolate Jesus’ first miracle in turning water into wine? - by your same argumentation is is improbably for us to believe it.

One could not assume, as a matter of pure history, that this miracle happened, certainly. I don’t see what’s so hard about this concept.

This is not about what we believe as Christians. This is about what can be proven without invoking Christian faith and the authority of the Church. The spiral argument claims, absurdly, that you can prove the historicity of the Gospels without faith, and then when I point out that you can’t, you get upset because I don’t simply assume historicity. It makes no sense.

Or maybe we need to make another denomination: The Historical Critical Church - it’s not catholic, not protestant, not orthodox, not even bible - it’s just historical critical… wait… we already have it! - it is secular and their pastors are known as scholars.

Indeed. That would be a ghastly church, and insofar as mainline Protestant churches have become that church they’re pretty ghastly.

But we aren’t talking about the teaching of any church. We are talking about what supposedly can be proven without assuming the authority of the Church. You are playing bait-and-switch. This is how this debate always goes. People say “by purely historical means you can prove that the Gospels are accurate.” Me: “No you can’t.” Piously outraged people: “But you’re questioning the historicity of the Gospels–that’s horrifying!”

If you’re going to set aside the authority of the Church for purposes of apologetic argument, that’s your funeral. I think it’s a bad idea. But don’t blame me for just pointing out the obvious consequences, which are that you then can’t reintroduce the assumption that the Gospels are accurate whenever it’s convenient.

Historical evidence is pretty darn evident:

Was there a Church at Rome founded by Christians?

How unified the local church at Rome was until the latter half of the second century is a matter of debate. I think that many scholars exaggerate the supposed disunity of the Roman church for their own purposes, but I’m not a second-century specialist.

Yes - Paul’s letter to the Romans - not only was there a Church but there Church was heard off throughout the area!

Indeed. But we know nothing about how this early church was organized. The absence of any reference to a single bishop from any source written before the later second century is interesting (Ignatius, for instance, addresses all his other letters to the local bishop, but not the letter to the Romans–again, I think a lot of scholars make too much of this, but it’s part of the evidence and needs to be considered).

Were Peter and Paul at the Roman Church?
Yes.

Probably.

Did they lead this Roman Church?
Yes.

Unclear. It was certainly believed a century later that they did.

Is this Church still standing today?
Yes.

With many differences. Whether these differences are fatal to the claims of the “Roman” Catholic Church is something on which historians can’t pronounce. I don’t think they are, by the way. I accept the claims of the Catholic Church. I’m simply arguing against preposterous misuse of history in the service of misguided apologetics.

Case is closed. No man made institution can last this long, period. History is immensely against you here.

That’s absurd on several levels. For one thing, you make a blanket claim about what “man-made institutions” can do with absolutely no argument or evidence to support you. In the second place, you imagine me to be arguing against the claims of Catholicism in some way. I’m not. I’m arguing against a highly misguided argument which appears to me to have been borrowed from the Protestant “Princeton theologians,” though I may be wrong about that. It’s certainly not Catholic teaching in any way.

There is no need to complicate or go secular on what is pretty obvious.

There is a need to take historical evidence seriously. And yes, history is pretty complicated. Don’t blame me–I didn’t invent it.

If it were obvious, all learned and devout people would be Catholic. They aren’t. As you would cay, case closed (not against Catholicism, but against the obviousness of Catholicism).

Historical criticism is just that - a way to criticize,

That’s a cutesy play on words and nothing more, especially since I have actually been using terms like “historical analysis.” I’m simply taking the claims of the “spiral argument” at face value. If you don’t want to analyze the text without bringing in the authority of the Church, don’t do so. But don’t pretend you are when you’re not.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

So you agree that the Church, led by the Holy Spirit, was not in error in determining the canon of the Bible. So you would at least have to agree that the Church was infallible (free from error) in this case, yes?

"Infallible" generally means “free from the possibility of error,” not just “free from error.” I think that discussion is muddled when people use the term too broadly. After all, people are right about stuff fairly often (and wrong even more often, perhaps). It seems unreasonable to say that anyone who is right about anything is infallible.

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

It is theoretically possible that the Church has left one out. However, on the basis that the vast majority of the Fathers and subsequent Christians have acknowledged the 27 books of the NT to be the full canon, and on the basis that there seems to be a clear difference between the content and provenance of the canonical books and those of the non-canonical NT ‘apocrypha’, I am confident (based on faith) that the Holy Spirit has led the Church into accepting the right books.

This is not the same as believing that the Church could not have erred, or as believing that the (e.g. Roman) Church has not erred with respect to other matters.

How could it err with the same Holy Spirit leading it then?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Of course the Church determines canon, or rule. Why would you think we think otherwise? As Lutherans, we look to the Church as the teaching authority.

The canon of scripture was set at a time when there was only one Universal Church. This was nearly 1200 years before Martin Luther was born.

AS is a lousy example, since the Lutheran confessions support the Tradition of AS, and many Lutheran synods claim it, often through Anglican lines (Catholic rejection of them notwithstanding).

Does the Missouri synod claim it?

Anyone can claim anything, but if it isn’t even claimed, it’s probably not factual.

That said, it is our view that Tradition is not equal to scripture, but a witness and reflection of it. So, yes, where Tradition varies from scripture it is not accepted.

By who’s interpretation of scripture?

 

[rinnie]

If that’s what you think infallible really means, then yes. But I have a stronger understanding of infallibility than that, which leads me to reject the infallibility of, e.g., the Pope.

With regards to the infallibility of the Church as a whole, I am willing to affirm a limited infallibility. I haven’t got time to explain myself now, but if you remind me of this later tonight / tomorrow, I’d be happy to write something.

When Jesus told him you are Peter and to you I give the keys to the kingdom, what you bound on earth is bound and what you loose is loose, the same as heaven as on earth,

Now what more could Jesus have said to show the Pope has the power to bind and loose here on earth?

If that does not make him Infallible when speaking in the name of Christ what more would you need?

What more could Jesus do then hand over to him the keys to the kingdom?

 

[steido01]

By who’s interpretation of scripture?

You still haven’t read the link we’ve shared, have you? One question at a time, friend. Do try to listen.

 

[rinnie]

Of course the Church determines canon, or rule. Why would you think we think otherwise? As Lutherans, we look to the Church as the teaching authority.
AS is a lousy example, since the Lutheran confessions support the Tradition of AS, and many Lutheran synods claim it, often through Anglican lines (Catholic rejection of them notwithstanding). That said, it is our view that Tradition is not equal to scripture, but a witness and reflection of it. So, yes, where Tradition varies from scripture it is not accepted.

Take a moment to actually read what I said. Better yet…
internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view

Jon

Jon just curious, why is Tradition rejected and not the written then? I mean if I am understanding this correctly, if you can accept the truth on one, why not the other.

And if you reject one how can accept the other.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

You still haven’t read the link we’ve shared, have you? One question at a time, friend. Do try to listen.

No, I haven’t read it all, yet. But I only needed to get a short way through it to find circular arguments and erroneous assumptions. We could go on a tangent and talk about the errors in this article, if you prefer to start a new thread. I just thought it might be better to stick to one subject.