Stumbling Block for Protestants? V2

[JonNC]

=FathersKnowBest;11323672]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.

But that universal Church did not universally receive the same canon, which is why the Orthodox have varying canons of their own.

Does the Missouri synod claim it?

The LCMS continues use presbyter ordination, which is acceptable under divine law, so much so that the Catholic Church has even employed it in the past (Cistercian Abbots I the 1400’s as an example).

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

I understand that Rome does not recognize it, and Catholics should defend that position. Please don’t take this as rude when I say we don’t believe the CC has the final say on what is factual regarding the issue. We recognize yours, wish you did ours, but we don’t lose any sleep over the fact that you don’t. That said, I suspect orders will not be a particular sticking point as we move toward closer unity.

By who’s interpretation of scripture?

Certainly you know the answer to that. Lutherans interpret scripture through the lens of the confessions, which are a right reflection of it.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

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.

You know, it is interesting that I can read Catholic documents, not agree with them, and yet make no qualitative remark about the thought process behind them. I don’t have to resort to comments such as “circular arguments” (the article isn’t making an argument, but stating the practice of our communion), or erroneous assumption (no assumptions are made, just a statement of practice, based on the history of the books). But polemics works for some, I guess.

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

You know, it is interesting that I can read Catholic documents, not agree with them, and yet make no qualitative remark about the thought process behind them. I don’t have to resort to comments such as “circular arguments” (the article isn’t making an argument, but stating the practice of our communion), or erroneous assumption (no assumptions are made, just a statement of practice, based on the history of the books). But polemics works for some, I guess.

Jon

You are assuming (wrongly) that I’m making a polemic argument. I’m not.
I have offered to explain if you’d like to go off-topic and start a thread.

Isn’t your statement, complaining about polemics, really a polemic?

 

[Novocastrian]

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

It couldn’t and didn’t. It could, however, have erred, had it not been listening to the Spirit.

 

[Novocastrian]

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

Well that would be my argument against the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff for the first few centuries at least (and arguably during many subsequent ones!)…

 

[JonNC]

You are assuming (wrongly) that I’m making a polemic argument. I’m not.
I have offered to explain if you’d like to go off-topic and start a thread.

Isn’t your statement, complaining about polemics, really a polemic?

Not at all, because I didn’t use terms to deflect the meaning of anyone’s argument. All one really need to do is say, I read it, I disagree with it, or my communion’s practice and teaching disagree with it.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Things mentioned only in John are also… So I don’t know what you’re getting at.

I’m getting at the insistence of isolating words and phrases to fit one’s own ideas. At this point all I’m seeing is you wanting to deconstruct words and single-instance passages.

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.

Then perhaps you can show me where else is the “Kingdom of Heaven” mentioned in the other 3 Gospels.

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.

It’s not hard for me at all. I’m not the one isolating passages in order to question the historical validity of them.

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.

I get upset because your post makes no sense and places more value on historical accuracy than on the totality of the Gospels. The good’ol divide and conquer technique.

… 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!”

That’s not my claim. My claim is that the big white elephant in the middle of the room is staring at you.

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.

That’s your funeral, not mine. I’m adding things in base of your argumentation. My pancakes don’t need to be flipped, thank you very much.

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.

I’m not arguing unity. I’m arguing presence from a historical analysis, as you like to call it. It is your burden of proof to show me how it is not still here.

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).

Again, I’m not talking about the details. I’m talking about its historical presence since the Apostles.

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.

Is the Church still here? What other institution is still here that is contemporaneous with the Church? I know not of one other. I’ll be glad to stand corrected if you can show me.

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

I’m blaming your selective historicity, not history itself.

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).

If they aren’t then not all people are learned and devout! (That’s your fault for leaving that door open for me.) I’m not saying it’s obvious, but clearly if you go into historical analysis your road should lead to Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Unless you take Faith and Reason out of the equation. It has always baffled me how some people, whom I think are learned and devout (But I’m fallible after all), remain in Protestantism (You and Jon come to mind).

Why aren’t you Catholic? Or are you an Undercover Catholic like JonNC?

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

And who is playing cutesy words now?

 

[Contarini]

I’m getting at the insistence of isolating words and phrases to fit one’s own ideas.

That is not what I am doing. It has nothing to do with fitting my own ideas (I don’t have any ideas of my own that are better “fit” by this passage not having been spoken by Jesus–quite the reverse if anything), and I’m not “isolating” anything. It’s true that historical analysis doesn’t harmonize the way a theological approach tends to. That’s one reason we need both–our faith certainly shouldn’t be based on a historical-critical reading, but historical-critical approaches can enrich our faith by helping us hear the distinctive voices. (For instance, Christians paid almost no attention to Mark until the rise of historical-critical method.)

But in the case of Matthew 16, it’s precisely when you compare the three Gospels that the absence of the “upon this Rock” passage in Mark and Luke is striking.

Then perhaps you can show me where else is the “Kingdom of Heaven” mentioned in the other 3 Gospels.

“Kingdom of God” is mentioned–Matthew says “Kingdom of Heaven” because it’s a Jewish custom to avoid mentioning God directly. You find this a lot in Matthew.

Maybe Matthew’s version is subtly different in some way, but essentially they appear to be synonyms.

I get upset because your post makes no sense and places more value on historical accuracy than on the totality of the Gospels.

Perhaps you have neglected to look at the context of my post. I am arguing against the so-called “spiral argument,” which claims to engage in purely historical analysis. Obviously, in addressing this argument, I’m going to be concerned for historical accuracy and not the totality of the Gospels. I agree that this is a very bad way to interpret the Gospels for the Church. As I said above, we need both historical and theological methods–they enrich each other. But the “spiral argument” claims to use only a historical approach–and then it cheats.

You are frustrated with me because I use standard historical methodology. I am not making any of this up. If you want to defend the spiral argument, you have to play by the normal rules of historical inquiry.

I’m not arguing unity. I’m arguing presence from a historical analysis, as you like to call it.

Then agreed–obviously there was a presence.

It is your burden of proof to show me how it is not still here.

I don’t know why it would be, since I have not claimed that it isn’t. Why should I shoulder the burden of proof to maintain something I do not even believe? It makes no sense.

But if you claim that one can prove historically that it is here, then you have shouldered the burden of proof. And it’s an impossible burden, because you have to prove what “it” is. Certainly there are still Christians in Rome, with a lot of continuity with the early Christians. But there are important differences too.

I really don’t want to have this argument, because it’s not relevant to anything I’m trying to argue.

Again, I’m not talking about the details. I’m talking about its historical presence since the Apostles.

You can’t talk history without talking details. History is in the details.

Is the Church still here? What other institution is still here that is contemporaneous with the Church? I know not of one other. I’ll be glad to stand corrected if you can show me.

Buddhist monasticism, for one thing. But this is pointless–the problem is in your leap from “the Church has been around for a long time” to “the Church must be supernatural.” It makes no sense. There is no logic to it, and it’s a leap that takes you way beyond history.

If they aren’t then not all people are learned and devout! (That’s your fault for leaving that door open for me.)

I didn’t. Unless your experience is extremely limited, or you a person of viciously narrow prejudice, it should be obvious to you that there are many learned and devout Protestants.

I’m not saying it’s obvious, but clearly if you go into historical analysis your road should lead to Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

Not based on history alone. In fact I agree with you. I don’t think Protestantism is tenable. But that’s because of historical analysis on the basis of certain theological presuppositions and personal predilections. Many people more learned and devout than I think I’m silly on this point.

Unless you take Faith and Reason out of the equation. It has always baffled me how some people, whom I think are learned and devout (But I’m fallible after all), remain in Protestantism (You and Jon come to mind).

Why aren’t you Catholic? Or are you an Undercover Catholic like JonNC?

Sort of. . . . I am very reluctant to break communion with the people I’m already in communion with, including my wife. But I think I’ve finally got to a point where conscience requires me to enter into full communion with Rome. At the advice of the local priest, I’m waiting until I move early next year. And knowing parish RCIA programs, they may spin me out further . . . .

Edwin

 

[GKC]

That is not what I am doing. It has nothing to do with fitting my own ideas (I don’t have any ideas of my own that are better “fit” by this passage not having been spoken by Jesus–quite the reverse if anything), and I’m not “isolating” anything. It’s true that historical analysis doesn’t harmonize the way a theological approach tends to. That’s one reason we need both–our faith certainly shouldn’t be based on a historical-critical reading, but historical-critical approaches can enrich our faith by helping us hear the distinctive voices. (For instance, Christians paid almost no attention to Mark until the rise of historical-critical method.)

But in the case of Matthew 16, it’s precisely when you compare the three Gospels that the absence of the “upon this Rock” passage in Mark and Luke is striking.

“Kingdom of God” is mentioned–Matthew says “Kingdom of Heaven” because it’s a Jewish custom to avoid mentioning God directly. You find this a lot in Matthew.

Maybe Matthew’s version is subtly different in some way, but essentially they appear to be synonyms.

Perhaps you have neglected to look at the context of my post. I am arguing against the so-called “spiral argument,” which claims to engage in purely historical analysis. Obviously, in addressing this argument, I’m going to be concerned for historical accuracy and not the totality of the Gospels. I agree that this is a very bad way to interpret the Gospels for the Church. As I said above, we need both historical and theological methods–they enrich each other. But the “spiral argument” claims to use only a historical approach–and then it cheats.

You are frustrated with me because I use standard historical methodology. I am not making any of this up. If you want to defend the spiral argument, you have to play by the normal rules of historical inquiry.

Then agreed–obviously there was a presence.

I don’t know why it would be, since I have not claimed that it isn’t. Why should I shoulder the burden of proof to maintain something I do not even believe? It makes no sense.

But if you claim that one can prove historically that it is here, then you have shouldered the burden of proof. And it’s an impossible burden, because you have to prove what “it” is. Certainly there are still Christians in Rome, with a lot of continuity with the early Christians. But there are important differences too.

I really don’t want to have this argument, because it’s not relevant to anything I’m trying to argue.

You can’t talk history without talking details. History is in the details.

Buddhist monasticism, for one thing. But this is pointless–the problem is in your leap from “the Church has been around for a long time” to “the Church must be supernatural.” It makes no sense. There is no logic to it, and it’s a leap that takes you way beyond history.

I didn’t. Unless your experience is extremely limited, or you a person of viciously narrow prejudice, it should be obvious to you that there are many learned and devout Protestants.

Not based on history alone. In fact I agree with you. I don’t think Protestantism is tenable. But that’s because of historical analysis on the basis of certain theological presuppositions and personal predilections. Many people more learned and devout than I think I’m silly on this point.

Sort of. . . . I am very reluctant to break communion with the people I’m already in communion with, including my wife. But I think I’ve finally got to a point where conscience requires me to enter into full communion with Rome. At the advice of the local priest, I’m waiting until I move early next year. And knowing parish RCIA programs, they may spin me out further . . . .

Edwin

Imagine my surprise.

GKC

 

[stewstew03]

…
Sort of. . . . I am very reluctant to break communion with the people I’m already in communion with, including my wife. But I think I’ve finally got to a point where conscience requires me to enter into full communion with Rome. At the advice of the local priest, I’m waiting until I move early next year. And knowing parish RCIA programs, they may spin me out further . . . .

Edwin

Praise God…

(By the way, very familiar with that difficult decision - my wife is still very much a non-Catholic, Southern Baptist).

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That is not what I am doing.

But in the case of Matthew 16, it’s precisely when you compare the three Gospels that the absence of the “upon this Rock” passage in Mark and Luke is striking.

Well, thanks for the clarification but it seems to be what you are doing, at least to me

Matthew was there - Mark and Luke were not.

“Kingdom of God” is mentioned–Matthew says “Kingdom of Heaven” because it’s a Jewish custom to avoid mentioning God directly. You find this a lot in Matthew.

Oh, come on Edwin!

Maybe Matthew’s version is subtly different in some way, but essentially they appear to be synonyms.

They are all different. Matthew was an Apostle, Mark was Peter’s Gopher, Luke was Paul’s buddy and interviewed almost everyone in the area, and John was there but he was just different in his own way.

Perhaps you have neglected to look at the context of my post.

Perhaps I have. My apologies.

You are frustrated with me

YES!!!

because I use standard historical methodology. I am not making any of this up. If you want to defend the spiral argument, you have to play by the normal rules of historical inquiry.

How about logic and reason?

Then agreed–obviously there was a presence.

Amen!

I don’t know why it would be, since I have not claimed that it isn’t. Why should I shoulder the burden of proof to maintain something I do not even believe? It makes no sense.

Indeed, clear now from your above response.

But if you claim that one can prove historically that it is here, then you have shouldered the burden of proof. And it’s an impossible burden, because you have to prove what “it” is. Certainly there are still Christians in Rome, with a lot of continuity with the early Christians. But there are important differences too.

We are human - there will be differences!

List of Popes (Bishop of Rome) {And yes, I am aware of the Avignon controversy }

Buddhist monasticism, for one thing. But this is pointless–the problem is in your leap from “the Church has been around for a long time” to “the Church must be supernatural.” It makes no sense. There is no logic to it, and it’s a leap that takes you way beyond history.

OK you got me there. But you have to concede that Buddhism is a collection of traditions and practices and with various deities. So I’ll stand corrected on one leg.

I didn’t. Unless your experience is extremely limited, or you a person of viciously narrow prejudice, it should be obvious to you that there are many learned and devout Protestants.

I was trying to make light out of my frustration.

Not based on history alone. In fact I agree with you. I don’t think Protestantism is tenable. But that’s because of historical analysis on the basis of certain theological presuppositions and personal predilections. Many people more learned and devout than I think I’m silly on this point.

It is probably easier to converse with you over wine or iced tea.

Sort of. . . . I am very reluctant to break communion with the people I’m already in communion with, including my wife. But I think I’ve finally got to a point where conscience requires me to enter into full communion with Rome. At the advice of the local priest, I’m waiting until I move early next year. And knowing parish RCIA programs, they may spin me out further . . . .

Edwin

You are supporting my comment about learned and devout now - just kidding.

Praise God! Are you going to teach RCIA or take the classes?

Peace,

 

[adf417]

Let me recap for myself steido01…

You make a comment like this:

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

Then after you have been asked multiple times a question you seem to understand and your best response is:

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.

Sorry but i’m a bit :whacky:

 

[JonNC]

If they aren’t then not all people are learned and devout! (That’s your fault for leaving that door open for me.) I’m not saying it’s obvious, but clearly if you go into historical analysis your road should lead to Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Unless you take Faith and Reason out of the equation. It has always baffled me how some people, whom I think are learned and devout (But I’m fallible after all), remain in Protestantism (You and Jon come to mind).

Why aren’t you Catholic? Or are you an Undercover Catholic like JonNC?

Shhh. Don’t blow my cover.
npatrol:

Jon

 

[steido01]

Let me recap for myself steido01…

You make a comment like this:

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

Yes, let’s recap.

1. I observed a poster from the Roman party using faulty logic against Novocastrian’s argument in the previous thread, and I called it out. That does not necessarily mean I support the protestant party’s argument, only that I perceived a logical flaw in the Roman poster’s reasoning.
2. Other Roman Catholic posters apparently did not understand this distinction, and assumed that I was defending Novo’s position. So they posed the original question asked to Novo, to me:

“How do YOU know that the Church made the “correct discernment” regarding the canon?”

1. I explained that, being Lutheran, I cannot defend that position, as Lutherans have a different understanding of ‘canon’:

…Between Catholics and Protestants, the canon debate is framed in such a way that either you believe in an inerrant Protestant canon of 66 books based on their self-evident, internal witness to their own divine inspiration, or you believe that the infallible Church inerrantly defined the canon, and that it is accepted only on that authority. But as with many theological issues,** the Lutheran position takes neither of the supposedly only two possible options without being a synthesis, either.**

Emphasis mine.

If this concept is still unclear at this point, the fault does not lie in my explanation.

 

[adf417]

Yes, let’s recap.

1. I observed a poster from the Roman party using faulty logic against Novocastrian’s argument in the previous thread, and I called it out. That does not necessarily mean I support the protestant party’s argument, only that I perceived a logical flaw in the Roman poster’s reasoning.
2. Other Roman Catholic posters apparently did not understand this distinction, and assumed that I was defending Novo’s position. So they posed the original question asked to Novo, to me:
3. I explained that, being Lutheran, I cannot defend that position, as Lutherans have a different understanding of ‘canon’:
   Emphasis mine.

If this concept is still unclear at this point, the fault does not lie in my explanation.

Yea I just don’t get the…

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

part of your question. It seems you are answering your own question and then implying everyone should understand your POV by asking the question.

Peace!!!

 

[rinnie]

It couldn’t and didn’t. It could, however, have erred, had it not been listening to the Spirit.

What about the many who claim to have been listening to the Spirit. The Holy Spirit was promised to the RCC to speak in the name of Christ and when the Pope speaks in the voice of Christ we have this promise.

What would be your argument however if the Pope says he is teaching in the name of Christ by power of the Holy Spirit that he is wrong?

 

[rinnie]

Well that would be my argument against the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff for the first few centuries at least (and arguably during many subsequent ones!)…

It’s always been claimed by the RCC. It has been claimed from the time of Scripture when Peter said it has been clearly stated God made his choice it would be from his mouth the gospel be proclaimed to the gentiles…

 

[Novocastrian]

It’s always been claimed by the RCC. It has been claimed from the time of Scripture when Peter said it has been clearly stated God made his choice it would be from his mouth the gospel be proclaimed to the gentiles…

You can say that as much as you like, but it doesn’t make it true. Besides, in Scripture, I think you’ll find that Paul is apostle to the uncircumcised…

 

[Novocastrian]

What about the many who claim to have been listening to the Spirit. The Holy Spirit was promised to the RCC to speak in the name of Christ and when the Pope speaks in the voice of Christ we have this promise.

Well, obviously that’s a question for discernment. Those who preach a gospel radically different to that preached by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, etc., are probably not listening to the Holy Spirit!

What would be your argument however if the Pope says he is teaching in the name of Christ by power of the Holy Spirit that he is wrong?

I don’t understand this question; could you rephrase it please?

 

[rinnie]

You can say that as much as you like, but it doesn’t make it true. Besides, in Scripture, I think you’ll find that Paul is apostle to the uncircumcised…

Huh? Its the word of God written in the bible. Its not me saying it that makes it true.