Stumbling Block for Protestants?

[PRmerger]

According to the same criterion that was used for the rest of the NT, of which there were several factors at play in which books were received by the church.

What criterion is that, Per Crucem?

 

[Per_Crucem]

You are missing the original question.

Read your first quote above.

We have no record of God commanding the New Testament to be written and yet you accept the authority of the Church as She received these writings from our Lord.

I don’t agree that we have no record of God commanding it. Christ commanded it several times. I’m sorry He wasn’t specific enough in saying “write it down” to meet your criteria. However, if I ask someone to teach others what I’ve taught, I would expect that verbal and written communication in doing so has my command to teach others covered.

You cannot criticize things that you don’t interpret as commanded by God by using the very same instrument that this same authority is giving you the correct interpretation of Scriptures. Because if you take the Church away, your New Testament comes crumbling to the ground.

The unspoken assumption here is that the Church is your Church, as opposed to, say, mine or the Orthodox. Why shift to the canon of the NT so quickly? How is that even relevant as to which Church is the Church that can command Christians on behalf of God? You have yet to give any standard for determining when the Church is correct other than the Church itself. That doesn’t solve the problem, because churches do that sort of thing all the time.

 

[Per_Crucem]

What criterion is that, Per Crucem?

Written by an apostle vs. non-apostles; what was read aloud in weekly assemblies; what was consistent and contradiction free; what reinforced the consensus of belief; what was written during the apostolic age. That is to name but a few. Augustine included a few himself in his Canonical Books

 

[PRmerger]

Except that you were asking her to prove where it says you do not need to confess your sins to a priest. It would be much more effective for you to show her where she has to.

But, again, that is not my paradigm.

It is like your telling me, “You have to speak English only in Montreal”.

Nope. I don’t need to speak English only. :nope:

 

[SteveVH]

So you presuppose that the Catholic Church under the Pope has this authority, and then agree that it has this authority because the Church interpreted it to say that it has this authority? How is this not hopelessly circular?

No, I do not presuppose anything. My position is based, first of all, on my conclusion that Jesus is who he claimed to be. This can be determined from a simple historic reading of the New Testament, the credibility of the witnesses to the Gospel accounts, the writings of the early Church, etc. I then look to see what he did. He started a Church and gave unprecedented authority to that Church and promised that it would be guided into all truth? At that point, I submit to the teachings of this Church founded by Christ and believe that it is divinely guided and protected from error.

I don’t disagree that it was to the Church.

Then why do you not submit to that Church?

So if the EO was part of it, then how did it ever lose it? And why should I trust your judgment that Rome is the continuation of the true Church and not the East?

You don’t have to trust my judgment on anything. My position is that Christ founded his Church upon Peter, in order to preserve unity in the whole Church. We do not need to go off topic here by presenting Catholic and EO arguments. The real question is for you. If you agree that Jesus gave this authority to the Church then why are you not either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I don’t agree that we have no record of God commanding it. Christ commanded it several times. I’m sorry He wasn’t specific enough in saying “write it down” to meet your criteria. However, if I ask someone to teach others what I’ve taught, I would expect that verbal and written communication in doing so has my command to teach others covered.

This is exactly my point. The only reason we have the New Testament is because these writing are Liturgical and they are confirmed by the teaching office of the Church (Magisterium) throughout the centuries. Through time and (more importantly) by the Grace of God, these writings were put in the written form. There were, however, other great writings during these hundreds of years. Ultimately, the Church as a whole (These include the Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Churches before any separation) inspired by the Holy Spirit of God determined that the 27 books we presently have - are the ones to be considered as Divinely Inspired. The Church discerned this.

The unspoken assumption here is that the Church is your Church, as opposed to, say, mine or the Orthodox. Why shift to the canon of the NT so quickly? How is that even relevant as to which Church is the Church that can command Christians on behalf of God? You have yet to give any standard for determining when the Church is correct other than the Church itself. That doesn’t solve the problem, because churches do that sort of thing all the time.

I don’t assume. It is a fact, our Pope is holding the same office that St. Peter held - Do you deny this? And by the way I am not excluding the Orthodox nor the Oriental. This is an assumption on your part.

The biggest difference is that our (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental) heritage was there with Christ and the Apostles. Your present Church was not. Your Church broke away from ours 1,500 years later. We are the living witnesses of what is written. Where’s the original writings?

We (Lutheran and Catholics) are united by baptism but still in schism.

By holding to Scripture Alone you deny the Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church. You can’t even hold Services on Sundays without Tradition - or know what Scriptures are without Tradition - or understand how the divine and human nature of Christ are in one person without the Magisterium - or the Mystery of the Trinity without the Magisterium.

They (Tradition and Magisterium) are both instruments of Christ. Many have walked before us and we a reaping the benefits of their sacrifices.

 

[Per_Crucem]

This is exactly my point. The only reason we have the New Testament is because these writing are Liturgical and they are confirmed by the teaching office of the Church (Magisterium) throughout the centuries. Through time and (more importantly) by the Grace of God, these writings were put in the written form. There were, however, other great writings during these hundreds of years. Ultimately, the Church as a whole (These include the Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Churches before any separation) inspired by the Holy Spirit of God determined that the 27 books we presently have - are the ones to be considered as Divinely Inspired. The Church discerned this.

But no one is disputing, at least in this conversation, that the Church received and discerned the Scriptures. That this was the will of God is also not in dispute. What is in dispute is which Church that is.

I don’t assume. It is a fact, our Pope is holding the same office that St. Peter held - Do you deny this?

Yes and no. I don’t dispute that bishops have the same office that St. Peter had. I do dispute what you ascribe to the office of bishop in the case of the bishop of Rome.

And by the way I am not excluding the Orthodox nor the Oriental. This is an assumption on your part.

No it isn’t, because your doctrine and theirs is, at present, mutually exclusive. They do not believe that the churches in communion with Rome are the continuation of the apostolic faith. They believe theirs are.

The biggest difference is that our (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental) heritage was there with Christ and the Apostles. Your present Church was not. Your Church broke away from ours 1,500 years later. We are the living witnesses of what is written. Where’s the original writings?

Actually, we would say that yours broke away 1500 years later.

We (Lutheran and Catholics) are united by baptism but still in schism.

Agreed.

By holding to Scripture Alone you deny the Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church. You can’t even hold Services on Sundays without Tradition - or know what Scriptures are without Tradition - or understand how the divine and human nature of Christ are in one person without the Magisterium - or the Mystery of the Trinity without the Magisterium.

I don’t believe, in any respect, that your church body’s present magisterium is that same communion that determined the ancient faith. You can dispute this, of course, but there’s a reason I am not Catholic. That goes without saying. As for tradition, I have no problem with tradition. I have a problem with tradition which is not apostolic.

 

[Per_Crucem]

No, I do not presuppose anything. My position is based, first of all, on my conclusion that Jesus is who he claimed to be. This can be determined from a simple historic reading of the New Testament, the credibility of the witnesses to the Gospel accounts, the writings of the early Church, etc. I then look to see what he did. He started a Church and gave unprecedented authority to that Church and promised that it would be guided into all truth? At that point, I submit to the teachings of this Church founded by Christ and believe that it is divinely guided and protected from error.

Fair enough. I have no problem with you exerting your private judgment to reach that conclusion. I only ask that you not presume that yours is not private judgment and mine is.

Then why do you not submit to that Church?

Because I don’t believe yours is it.

You don’t have to trust my judgment on anything. My position is that Christ founded his Church upon Peter, in order to preserve unity in the whole Church. We do not need to go off topic here by presenting Catholic and EO arguments. The real question is for you. If you agree that Jesus gave this authority to the Church then why are you not either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox?

Because I don’t believe that either is faithful to the apostolic religion. At least, not in toto. It’s not off topic. The only reason I bring it up is not to stake out a position that is either EO or RCC, but only to demonstrate that you are exerting no less private judgment than I. We just reach different conclusions.

 

[SteveVH]

As for tradition, I have no problem with tradition. I have a problem with tradition which is not apostolic.

And which Tradition would that be? And how do you know that it is not Apostolic?

 

[Per_Crucem]

And which Tradition would that be? And how do you know that it is not Apostolic?

Depends on the subject. I have no reason to believe that the assumption, the IC, purgatory, papal infallibility, the thesaurus meritum, etc. are apostolic, much less biblical (oral or written).

 

[SteveVH]

Depends on the subject. I have no reason to believe that the assumption, the IC, purgatory, papal infallibility, the thesaurus meritum, etc. are apostolic, much less biblical (oral or written).

But you accept that the Church was infallible in its determination of the canon of Scripture, correct?

The Church that infallibly determined the canon of Sacred Scripture, which you accept (generally) is the same Church that infallibly determined that the Assumption, the IC, purgatory, papal infallibility, etc. are true doctrine which the faithful are obligated to believe.

So what changed?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I do dispute what you ascribe to the office of bishop in the case of the bishop of Rome.

Get in line…

No it isn’t, because your doctrine and theirs is, at present, mutually exclusive. They do not believe that the churches in communion with Rome are the continuation of the apostolic faith. They believe theirs are.

That is their problem. We, on the other hand, recognize their heritage.

Actually, we would say that yours broke away 1500 years later.

Perhaps you can show the line of Bishops from your denomination that dates to the Apostles.

I don’t believe, in any respect, that your church body’s present magisterium is that same communion that determined the ancient faith. You can dispute this, of course, but there’s a reason I am not Catholic. That goes without saying. As for tradition, I have no problem with tradition. I have a problem with tradition which is not apostolic.

Of course you don’t, otherwise we would not be having this conversation. Your reasons are between you and Christ, just like mine are.

Who determines what Tradition is Apostolic? Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals, Methodists, Non-Denominationals, Anglicans, Reformed, Congregationalists, others?

 

[Jaberwocky]

Because I don’t believe that either is faithful to the apostolic religion. At least, not in toto. It’s not off topic. The only reason I bring it up is not to stake out a position that is either EO or RCC, but only to demonstrate that you are exerting no less private judgment than I. We just reach different conclusions.

Here is a question that will help us all understand you better.

You say that both the EO and RCC are not faithful to the Apostolic religion. Can you elaborate on this matter with respect to the following questions

a) How did you discover the Apostolic religion?
b) What are the sources used to reconstruct the Apostolic religion?
c) Did you accept Scripture before you judged what was the Apostolic religion or afterward?
d) Why do you think that the religion has to be Apostolic?
e) Do you believe that the Apostolic religion may not be what Christ said? If no, what is the reason for that belief?

There are lots of Lutherans who have different views and are Lutheran for different reasons. Therefore, I think answering the above will help us understand your views.

 

[Per_Crucem]

But you accept that the Church was infallible in its determination of the canon of Scripture, correct?

I find it enough to say it was without error. I don’t think inserting infallible is necessary or helpful. Not that history is as simple saying that it determined the canon, as it isn’t as tidy historically as it made to be in apologetics circles.

So what changed?

This

the Church that infallibly determined that the Assumption, the IC, purgatory, papal infallibility, etc. are true doctrine which the faithful are obligated to believe.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Who determines what Tradition is Apostolic? Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals, Methodists, Non-Denominationals, Anglicans, Reformed, Congregationalists, others?

History.

 

[Jaberwocky]

History.

Is it your position that there is no historical record of the existence of the office of an Apostolic Successor, Bishop of Rome etc.?

If you do get the chance, it would help if you will answer my post #163 above as well.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

-]History/-] Revisionist History.

Fixed.

To be in Church History is to be either Catholic or Orthodox.

At this point you are not adding a lot of substance to your claims, or any proof for that matter. I’ll stop entertaining you until you answer the questions in depth and show your proof.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Is it your position that there is no historical record of the existence of the office of an Apostolic Successor, Bishop of Rome etc.?

If you do get the chance, it would help if you will answer my post #163 above as well.

I’m starting to smell troll but I’ll give the poster the benefit of the doubt.

 

[SteveVH]

I find it enough to say it was without error. I don’t think inserting infallible is necessary or helpful. Not that history is as simple saying that it determined the canon, as it isn’t as tidy historically as it made to be in apologetics circles.

This

So you are saying that the Church who defined, “without error” the canon of the Bible is not the same Church that also defined the doctrines you mentioned?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Here is a question that will help us all understand you better.

You say that both the EO and RCC are not faithful to the Apostolic religion. Can you elaborate on this matter with respect to the following questions

a) How did you discover the Apostolic religion?

Could you clarify this one?

b) What are the sources used to reconstruct the Apostolic religion?

To reconstruct it? It was never deconstructed.

c) Did you accept Scripture before you judged what was the Apostolic religion or afterward?

After.

d) Why do you think that the religion has to be Apostolic?

Because it was founded by the apostles, by the command of God incarnate.

e) Do you believe that the Apostolic religion may not be what Christ said? If no, what is the reason for that belief?

No, at least not with respect to the evidence. The reason would be the Holy Spirit. On a practical level, if they’re reliable in telling me Christ was raised from the dead, I can take them without a grain of salt on baptism.