Stumbling Block for Protestants?

[SteveVH]

You’re looking for me to produce Scripture verses which state that if God commands or forbids something, He means it?

That was not the question. You made the statement that if it is commanded in Scripture then it is required and if it’s not forbidden in Scripture, it is permitted. Where, in Scripture is that stated?

Do the Scriptures speak about in vitro fertilization or human cloning? Are they therefore permitted because of the silence of “Scripture” on these issues?

 

[PRmerger]

Not sure, I’ve been asking Him this for a while.

I am confused. I thought you said that you were getting some “signals” that God wants you to stay in your current church, despite your theological leanings towards Catholicism.

What signals are you receiving?

 

[PRmerger]

That was not the question. You made the statement that if it is commanded in Scripture then it is required and if it’s not forbidden in Scripture, it is permitted. Where, in Scripture is that stated?

Do the Scriptures speak about in vitro fertilization or human cloning? Are they therefore permitted because of the silence of “Scripture” on these issues?

Exactly. And since profession of the dogma of the Assumption is not forbidden in Scripture, we are permitted to proclaim it?

There has to be a uniform paradigm–either,
-if it’s not in Scripture it’s permitted

OR

-if it’s not in Scripture it’s forbidden.

I’m not sure that Protestants have been able to provide a consistent, coherent paradigm regarding how to respond when Scripture is silent.

 

[Per_Crucem]

That was not the question. You made the statement that if it is commanded in Scripture then it is required and if it’s not forbidden in Scripture, it is permitted. Where, in Scripture is that stated?

In the first case, if God forbids something directly or commands it, it goes without saying that He commands or forbids it. Hence my response (and yes, it was the question, since part of it included proving from Scripture that we’re to obey the commands of God). Any time God commands or forbids something, it’s a “verse” which proves His command!

Do the Scriptures speak about in vitro fertilization or human cloning? Are they therefore permitted because of the silence of “Scripture” on these issues?

Of course not. I am not arguing against rules of hermeneutics (esp. when it comes to ethical issues) or interpretation. However, that wouldn’t be an argument from silence. If a principle in Scripture is applied to an ethical issue, then Scripture is not exactly silent on it, right?

 

[PRmerger]

In the first case, if God forbids something directly or commands it, it goes without saying that He commands or forbids it. Hence my response (and yes, it was the question, since part of it included proving from Scripture that we’re to obey the commands of God). Any time God commands or forbids something, it’s a “verse” which proves His command!

Of course not. I am not arguing against rules of hermeneutics (esp. when it comes to ethical issues) or interpretation. However, that wouldn’t be an argument from silence. If a principle in Scripture is applied to an ethical issue, then Scripture is not exactly silent on it, right?

But where does Scripture say that if Scripture is silent on an issue it’s permitted?

Why do you fall on that paradigm?

Maybe we should believe “If Scripture is silent on an issue it’s prohibited”.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Exactly. And since profession of the dogma of the Assumption is not forbidden in Scripture, we are permitted to proclaim it?

No one is arguing otherwise. If someone is convinced about the Assumption, you won’t see any pitchforks coming from my direction.

But that wasn’t the original topic, so all of this seems to be a red herring.

You asked a poster to prove from Scripture that God doesn’t require people to be absolved by a priest. I responded that this is asking the poster to disprove a negative. Of course Scripture doesn’t say “you don’t need to be forgiven by a priest.”

You would have to prove that Scripture requires one to be forgiven by a priest. I am not saying that Scripture has no such commands, but it’s incumbent on the one making a positive assertion to provide positive evidence.

 

[Per_Crucem]

But where does Scripture say that if Scripture is silent on an issue it’s permitted?

Why do you fall on that paradigm?

Maybe we should believe “If Scripture is silent on an issue it’s prohibited”.

You could, and many Christians do (especially the Reformed). However, they would have to prove that this is something Scripture requires and was something practiced by the apostles and the church. In actuality, it was practiced by the Pharisees. That didn’t turn out so well.

 

[SteveVH]

In the first case, if God forbids something directly or commands it, it goes without saying that He commands or forbids it.

Agreed. But that is not all you said. You said “in Scripture”. That is the point with which we disagree. Scripture does not tell us that if it is not addressed in Scripture then it is permitted. Would you not agree?

Hence my response (and yes, it was the question, since part of it included proving from Scripture that we’re to obey the commands of God). Any time God commands or forbids something, it’s a “verse” which proves His command!

Then, as PR has pointed out, you should have no problem with the Catholic doctrine of the Assumption because the Bible does not address it; therefore it must be permitted. How about the “Immaculate Conception”?

The question is where are we to go when we have questions such as this? Scripture tells us that we are to take it to the “Church”, not the Bible.

Of course not. I am not arguing against rules of hermeneutics (esp. when it comes to ethical issues) or interpretation. However, that wouldn’t be an argument from silence. If a principle in Scripture is applied to an ethical issue, then Scripture is not exactly silent on it, right?

What you are doing, however, is limiting the word of God to your interpretation of Scriptures which were given to you by the Church while ignoring the teachings of that very Church as to what the Scriptures mean. There are many who read the Scriptures and still support contraception, for instance. Have they simply missed the “principle in Scripture” or is it not really there? And how do we know who is right?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Rather judgemental, wouldn’t you say? :sad_yes:

Jon

What did Paul say about judging those IN the Church?

 

[PRmerger]

No one is arguing otherwise. If someone is convinced about the Assumption, you won’t see any pitchforks coming from my direction.

Excellent.

But I don’t think that many of your Protestant brethren will agree with you. There seems to be opposition to the dogma of the Assumption because Scripture doesn’t mention it.

That’s the problem with saying, “Where is that in the Bible?”–if it’s not in the Bible, then we Christians have to decide: it’s forbidden, therefore…

OR

it’s thereby permitted.

And it seems to be that those of you who have departed from the authority of the Magisterium seem to be appealing to both paradigms, depending upon what you want to permit or prohibit.

But that wasn’t the original topic, so all of this seems to be a red herring.

No, not a red herring. Just a natural progression of dialogue.

You asked a poster to prove from Scripture that God doesn’t require people to be absolved by a priest. I responded that this is asking the poster to disprove a negative. Of course Scripture doesn’t say “you don’t need to be forgiven by a priest.” You would have to prove that Scripture requires one to be forgiven by a priest. I am not saying that Scripture has no such commands, but it’s incumbent on the one making a positive assertion to provide positive evidence.

But that’s not our paradigm. That’s yours. We don’t subscribe to the belief that we have to show everything we believe must be found in Scripture.

But…since you insist…

see John 20:23.

 

[Randy_Carson]

On to why I do not join the Roman Catholic Church. I stated that in my previous post that the Apocryphal books accepted as being in the Old Testament by the Roman Catholic Church is the primary reason I do not go and become a member.

I’ll take a run at addressing your concern by providing this:

The “Council” of Jamnia
By Gary Michuta
handsonapologetics.com/deuterocanon.htm

Objection: “At the end of the first century, the Jews gathered together at the Council at Jamnia (also known as Jabneh or Yabneh) to discuss the canon of Scripture. From this Council, the rabbis drew up an authoritative list of sacred books which is identical to the Jewish / Protestant canon.”

Answer: Unfortunately, this short objection suffers from so many inaccuracies and overstatements that the best way to respond is to provide here a description of the real “council” of Jamnia.

After the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 AD, Rabban Jonathan ben Zakkai asked the Roman General Vespasian, who was well disposed to the Rabbi since it was known that he supported peace with the Romans, to spare the city of Jamnia and its rabbinical scholars.1 Permission was granted and the school set up in the “vineyards of Jamnia.”2 The problems that faced the new school were serious. The destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem made it impossible to continue the prescribed sacrifices required in the Old Testament. Judaism needed to make a radical change from a cultic (sacrifice and Temple centered) religion to a “religion of the Book.” This change, combined with the growth of Christianity (especially its use of the Jewish Greek Old Testament for evangelism) provided Judaism with the occasion to address the question of the canon of Scripture.3 The information that has come down to us about this canonical activity is fragmentary and certainly open to conjecture.

Note that our objector called this body the “Council of Jamnia”. Jamnia was not a council, in the sense of the Council of Trent or the Council of Nicaea, it was rather was an on-going rabbinical school. The idea of a “council” crept into everyone’s vocabulary via the writings of the famous Jewish historian H. Graetz who was the first to call Jamnia a “synode.”4 Christians interpreted Graetz’s synode to mean council. However, the word council implies quite a few features that Jamnia did not possess. For example, unlike a Christian council, there were no ballots cast, nor did this body promulgate formal decrees. Rather, Jamnia lasted for a number of years, and its significant opinions is persevered in piecemeal fashion in later Jewish writings. It is difficult to ascertain exactly what Jamnia had for Judaism as a whole. In some ways it acts much like the authoritative body of the Sanhedrin although it never took for itself that name.5 Therefore, it is inaccurate to speak about the council of Jamnia. It is more accurate description would be a rabbinical school.6

Jamnia never published or promulgated a list the list of books of the canon nor did it discuss the canon as a whole. Most of the debates surrounded the Book of Ecclesiastes and possibly the Song of Songs.7 Even so, there is no evidence that the decisions of this school were binding upon the Jewish popular at large.8 In fact, rabbinical disputes over the inspiration of certain books (e.g. the fringe books and Sirach) persisted throughout the first three Christian centuries. For this reason, the Protestant scholar F.F. Bruce wisely warns against stating that the assembly at Jamnia “laid down the limits” of the Old Testament canon.9

Like the two-canon theory, the Jamnia theory has fallen on hard times. As the Jewish scholar Sid Leiman concludes:

“The widespread view that the Council of Jamnia closed the biblical canon, or that it canonized any books at all, is not supported by the evidence and need no longer be seriously maintained.”10

If there were a candidate for an authoritative closing of the Old Testament canon in the first century AD, Jamnia would probably be it. However, there is no evidence that such a closing occurred this early in the life of this school.

 

[PRmerger]

You could, and many Christians do (especially the Reformed).

And that is why it is so dangerous to depart from the authority of the Tradition which gave you these Scriptures.

However, they would have to prove that this is something Scripture requires and was something practiced by the apostles and the church. In actuality, it was practiced by the Pharisees. That didn’t turn out so well.

I am not understanding what you are referencing here. What was practiced by the Pharisees?

 

[Randy_Carson]

And this:

Luther and the Canon

Recently, many Protestant apologists have been attempting to discredit the deuterocanonical books of the Bible by claiming that it would not be possible for Luther to delete books from a canon that had not been finalized.

In a private email, Gary Michuta, author of Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, provided me with the following response to this issue:

This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our separated brethren. They want to take attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church.

Even if something like the definition given at Trent happened before Luther, Luther would have rejected it as being in error and Protestants wouldn’t have abandoned Luther because of it any more than they abandoned Luther when he brushed aside other councils. In other words, this argument really isn’t about the legitimacy of the Protestant position, but rather it is a form of propaganda to make it look like the Church is dishonest.

However, what about the claim? Here is my two cents on the matter. After the first Christian to cause a major stir by attempting to reject the Deuterocanon as Apocrypha (St. Jerome), there were a series of local councils that met in North Africa to reaffirm the Christian Old Testament and New Testament. These were the councils of Hippo (393), Carthage I (397), and Carthage IV (419). All three of these reaffirmed the Catholic canon as canonical and divine Scripture. However, they were local councils that were confirmed by the Pope. Therefore, they were authoritatively defined but not with the solemnity of that of an Ecumenical Council. You must remember, however, that solemnity does not affect the authority of the definition given. Usually Ecumenical Councils met to address something that has disturbed the universal Church. By the end of the fourth century, Jerome’s views had caused trouble mainly in North Africa. Regardless of their solemnity, these councils are the first to authoritatively define the canon. After them, Innocent I (417) was questioned by a bishop as to the canon, and Innocent’s reply repeats the decree of Hippo / Carthage. This is the first Papal decision on the canon. There were a series of decrees attributed to Popes Damasus, Gelasius, and Hormisdas (266-523) that also reaffirmed the canon, as well. By the end of the ninth century, Pope Innocent I could write to the bishops of Gaul (modern day France) that Pope Innocent I’s letter on the canon was the “universal law of the Church.” To this, we could add that there are about a dozen local and regional councils (not to mention popes) during this period who issued decrees that quoted the Deutero’s to confirm doctrine and with the formal introduction normally given to Scripture showing that the issue was largely settled and that bishops throughout the world were confident in appealing to these texts to quiet heresies.

Probably the most important council to bring up is the Council of Florence, which promulgated a decree on canon of Scripture on Feb. 4, 1441. Florence’s decree states that the Catholic canon is given by the Holy Spirit and the Church accepts and venerates them. In terms of solemnity, this decree is greater than the previous ones. However, in terms of authority, it is just as authoritative as the rest.

In 1519, Johann Eck debated Luther and pointed out to him that the Church had already confirmed that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture, and he explicitly cited Florence as a proof of this. What was Luther’s response? Was it that the Church has not authoritatively defined the canon yet so everything is still up for grabs? This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said:

“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [Second Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, 251).

So Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later [namely] that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it.

Now what about Trent? Why do all these sources say that it wasn’t until Trent that we had a definitive decision on the canon? First, the fathers at Trent decided early on to adopt the canon of Florence without comment. For them, the issue was already closed in previous councils. However, since some otherwise solid Catholics have seem to adopted Jerome’s views on the Deuterocanonicals over and against these previous councils, something more was necessary to drive the point home that the matter had already been closed hundreds of years earlier. So, Trent attached an anathema to its decree on the canon. Trent wasn’t the first council or Church authority to define the canon, but it was the first to anathematize those who did not follow the canon. In terms of the authority of the canon, nothing was really changed, but the solemnity of Trent’s definition was, because of the anathema, far greater than any previous council.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Agreed. But that is not all you said. You said “in Scripture”. That is the point with which we disagree. Scripture does not tell us that if it is not addressed in Scripture then it is permitted. Would you not agree?

No, I wouldn’t. If one says that you can command or forbid things that God does not command or forbid, you begin playing a very dangerous game with people’s souls. Jesus spoke at length about this in the Gospels. You know well His admonition against the Pharisees for teaching the commandments of men as being the commandments of God. The apostles themselves, especially Paul, teach at length in their epistles to various churches about issues such as this. See Romans 14.

Then, as PR has pointed out, you should have no problem with the Catholic doctrine of the Assumption because the Bible does not address it; therefore it must be permitted. How about the “Immaculate Conception”?

I don’t argue with people about either. I would say that such opinions are neither commanded or forbidden. Of course, there are debates about both back and forth and that’s all well and good. I don’t think anyone is going to hell over it.

The question is where are we to go when we have questions such as this? Scripture tells us that we are to take it to the “Church”, not the Bible.

But PR wasn’t talking about the Church. She was asking a poster about Scripture

 

[Per_Crucem]

Excellent.

But I don’t think that many of your Protestant brethren will agree with you. There seems to be opposition to the dogma of the Assumption because Scripture doesn’t mention it.

Yes, but I don’t particularly care whether they do or don’t. If any of them condemn you to hell for believing it, I will be right there thwacking them over the head with something. Likewise, if a Catholic comes along and insists I must believe it, I will do the same.

That’s the problem with saying, “Where is that in the Bible?”–if it’s not in the Bible, then we Christians have to decide: it’s forbidden, therefore…

OR

it’s thereby permitted.

Yes, but it wasn’t myself that was asking anyone “Where is that in the Bible?” It was you, asking that to Heidi

And it seems to be that those of you who have departed from the authority of the Magisterium seem to be appealing to both paradigms, depending upon what you want to permit or prohibit.

No, we depart from the Magisterium when they, like sectarian Protestants, command things which God doesn’t.

But that’s not our paradigm. That’s yours. We don’t subscribe to the belief that we have to show everything we believe must be found in Scripture.

But…since you insist…

see John 20:23.

Neither do I. But since the subject was Scripture…

 

[PRmerger]

But PR wasn’t talking about the Church. She was asking a poster about Scripture

Right. I asked you to appeal to Scripture to back up your claim that if it’s not in Scripture it’s permitted.

You don’t have a verse to support your paradigm.

As such, it appears that you have simply applied an unsubstantiated hermeneutic to this.

At any rate, Scripture tells us what to do when Scripture is silent–we take it to the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Likewise, if a Catholic comes along and insists I must believe it, I will do the same.

But, again, you are applying your own unsubstantiated criterion here. “I don’t have to believe in the Assumption because…”

Because why, again? Because Scripture doesn’t mention it?

So then that takes us back to the unsubstantiated criterion you’ve arbitrarily decided to measure your salvation by.

 

[Per_Crucem]

And that is why it is so dangerous to depart from the authority of the Tradition which gave you these Scriptures.

But we’re not discussing tradition per se. We are discussing the subject, “Where does Scripture require a Christian to confess his sins to a priest in order to be absolved.”

I am not understanding what you are referencing here. What was practiced by the Pharisees?

Commanding and forbidding things that God did not command or forbid.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, but it wasn’t myself that was asking anyone “Where is that in the Bible?” It was you, asking that to Heidi

Sure.

Not sure your point?

No, we depart from the Magisterium when they, like sectarian Protestants, command things which God doesn’t.

How do you know God doesn’t command it? Because it’s not in the Bible?

Again, where does Scripture say that everything God commands is found only in the Bible?

That’s a command that God doesn’t make which you, paradoxically, are making.

I hope you see the irony here!

 

[PRmerger]

But we’re not discussing tradition per se. We are discussing the subject, “Where does Scripture require a Christian to confess his sins to a priest in order to be absolved.”

John 20.

Commanding and forbidding things that God did not command or forbid.

Again, you’re going to have to prove that God hasn’t commanded that we confess our sins to a priest.