Stumbling Block for Protestants?

[Porknpie]

You’re actually misinterpreting this; the passage is clearly speaking of location and not amount of people which is evident from the second part: * “and the whole region of the Jordan”*

The entire region of Judea and the entire region of Jordan had people coming from there, not all the people who live in Judea and all the people who live in Jordan.

Donald,

Other examples of potential mis-reading of the author’s intent involving the word all are below. So what we find over all, is that Protestants (some) pick and choose based on their own tradition how to interpret the word “all”, believing “all have sinned” including Mary but excluding Jesus but not really believing all of Israel will be saved, nor that the Corinthians were enriched with all (divine) knowledge.

Romans (should one believe that ALL Israel will be saved?.)

26 and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written,

“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;

I Corinthians 1 (were the Corinthians really imputed with all knowledge??)

4 I give thanks to God** always for you because of the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus, 5 that in every way you were enriched in him with all speech and all knowledge—

Conclusion to state it again, one has to understand what the sacred writers were trying to say. Just as we use the word “all” today or for me, “everyone”, the authors intent was not to be inclusive of Jesus and Mary in saying all have sinned.

PnP**

 

[steido01]

And let’s just go with where it leads, now that you have acknowledged that the CC got it right in discerning the 27 book canon of the NT.

This means, necessarily that

1. You are not Sola Scriptura, but defer to an outside authority for telling you the Word of God.

Lutherans aren’t “sola scriptura” in the sense that Many evangelicals are today. The term was rather commandeered from our original understanding. We still acknowledge tradition and the church’s teaching authority. It simply must conform with the commonly-accepted Scriptures - it’s like a checked-and-balanced system. We also don’t define a canon; rather, we allow Christendom, in general, to determine the canonicity of books. Per Crucem’s responses are to be expected from any well-catechized Lutheran.

1. You believe that the charism of infallibility has been given to the CC. At least as it applies to the canon of the NT.

This is a false conclusion.

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;11315337]And let’s just go with where it leads, now that you have acknowledged that the CC got it right in discerning the 27 book canon of the NT.

This means, necessarily that

1. You are not Sola Scriptura, but defer to an outside authority for telling you the Word of God.

At the risk of sounding to Catholic to defend SS D), scripture gives teaching authority to the Church. To truly be sola scripturist, one must recognize this truth.
While acknowledging the work of the undivided Church Catholic regarding both the Old and New Testaments, we also acknowledge that disputes within the Church existed regarding some books, both OT and NT, long before the 1500’s. In response to those disputes, we also recognize the need to view disputed books differently than universally attested books. this isn’t a matter of rejection, but in fact a matter of respect for the history of the Church.

1. You believe that the charism of infallibility has been given to the CC. At least as it applies to the canon of the NT.

I doubt Per Crucem does, but speaking only for me, being right doesn’t necessarily imply infallibility.

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

Lutherans aren’t “sola scriptura” in the sense that Many evangelicals are today. The term was rather commandeered from our original understanding. We still acknowledge tradition and the church’s teaching authority. It simply must conform with the commonly-accepted Scriptures - it’s like a checked-and-balanced system. We also don’t define a canon; rather, we allow Christendom, in general, to determine the canonicity of books. Per Crucem’s responses are to be expected from any well-catechized Lutheran.

This is a false conclusion.

Steido -

LCMS President’s keep defining the bible as 66 books. This is true of President Barry and President President Harris (I provided his quote in a previous post some months ago…or it may have been a youtube video statement). President Barry’s words below, from an article titled “What About the Bible” (you can google and find)

“What is the Bible?
The word“Bible”is from a Greek word that means “book.” What is this “good book”? That question has a two-part answer. First, the Bible is actually a collection of books–66 of them to be exact–from the first book,Genesis,to the last, Revelation.”

Christendom defined the canon at 73 books in the late 4th century, with the Christendom Orthodox types including a few more.

Catholic and Orthodox =

• 7 Sacraments
• at least 73 books in the bible.

Now that’s a pretty good check and balance system. :

PnP

 

[Per_Crucem]

Steido -

LCMS President’s keep defining the bible as 66 books. This is true of President Barry and President President Harris (I provided his quote in a previous post some months ago…or it may have been a youtube video statement). President Barry’s words below, from an article titled “What About the Bible” (you can google and find)

“What is the Bible?
The word“Bible”is from a Greek word that means “book.” What is this “good book”? That question has a two-part answer. First, the Bible is actually a collection of books–66 of them to be exact–from the first book,Genesis,to the last, Revelation.”

Christendom defined the canon at 73 books in the late 4th century, with the Christendom Orthodox types including a few more.

Catholic and Orthodox =

• 7 Sacraments
• at least 73 books in the bible.

Now that’s a pretty good check and balance system. :

PnP

That’s true, Porknpie. But Matthew Harrison does not define what Lutherans should or should not believe. Our Confessions do that. I understand that he holds to a 66 book canon. I’m free to disagree with him.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Point is… who had the authority (1,100 years later) and infallibility from Jesus Christ himself, over the Church, who around year 400, based on the apostolic faith, declared the deutercanonicals to be both inspired and inerrant?

The only one who can declare anything inspired is God who inspired it. The Church does not create the canon, it receives it. In this respect, Catholic teaching is orthodox because the canons of Vatican I pronounce the very same thing.

Be that as it may, I hold the deuterocanonicals to be Scripture, so I don’t need to argue the point.

In should be very relevant. That’s real problem then for you because you believe that these infallible Church councils still got it right on the 66 books in your bible. You might as well as throw it away because you really can not know for certain then, that the books in your bible are the Written Word of God. Either the the Church was infallible in determining all 73 books or they weren’t.

My Bible has 73 books.

Leveraging PRs comment, nearly all of Christendom considers them to be infallible at least in determining 66 books in the bible as inspired and inerrant. You do understand that there were several hundred NT writings that they had to discern from in recognizing just 27?

There were only a handful that were ever seriously considered, outside of the 27. The Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, the Gospel to the Hebrews and one or two others. Not hundreds.

No it is absolutely necessary that you know that the Church councils were infallible

How can I infallibly know the Church is infallible?

 

[Per_Crucem]

And let’s just go with where it leads, now that you have acknowledged that the CC got it right in discerning the 27 book canon of the NT.

This means, necessarily that

1. You are not Sola Scriptura, but defer to an outside authority for telling you the Word of God.
2. You believe that the charism of infallibility has been given to the CC. At least as it applies to the canon of the NT.

These conclusions are also huge, Per Crucem. Huge!

We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

That is the definition of Sola Scriptura in which I operate. It doesn’t contradict anything regarding what we are discussing. I don’t care how evangelicals, Baptists, Calvinists et al. define it.

 

[steido01]

That’s true, Porknpie. But Matthew Harrison does not define what Lutherans should or should not believe. Our Confessions do that. I understand that he holds to a 66 book canon. I’m free to disagree with him.

Precisely. LCMS Presidents are just that - presiders. They do not declare dogma. Lutherans are bound to the Confessions, which -as we have mentioned- do not define a canon.

Sidebar - noting President Harrison’s affinity for the Apocrypha (he pushed for the completion of an ESV translation and study notes to be published at CPH - a version that has received praise from some rather learned Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and even members here on CAF), it would not surprise me if he held to a canon longer than 66 books. It also does not surprise me that, in the context of a simple “FAQ,” a different LCMS president would fall back on the 66 books that all agree to be Scripture.

 

[pocohombre]

Thank you for sharing this with us.

Why did you leave the AoG?

I didn’t leave.They became independent or dropped affiliation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I doubt Per Crucem does, but speaking only for me, being right doesn’t necessarily imply infallibility.

You’re right, Jon, but it seems to me that after you’ve said, “Wow…the Catholics got another one right” a few times, a light bulb ought to go on.

:newidea:

 

[pocohombre]

]Yes. And what makes you think that Jesus stopped leaving His Church with any form of apostolic leadership after the death of the last Apostle??

“Any form of apostolic leadership” is a broad stroke, enough for almost all to think they follow.Of course Jesus has a plan for leadership, as he has in every testament and dispensation.

And that His plan was to have tens of thousands of individual pastors leading their flocks into the chaos and confusion of today?

Takes two to tango .Every action has it’s reaction ? What did CC do so wrong, what action did they take, to have such a reaction ?

And to have any individual who decides that his own interpretation of Scripture, if it differs from his pastor’s, start his own church?

However you reply for the “two to tango” is probably applicable to this. The reformation"action" will have a “reaction”. The principle of personal divine revelation is still a reality, and Jesus is not surprised by any reaction, good, bad or ugly ( imagine the movie video clip here of the famous shootout of the three).

 

[Porknpie]

How can I infallibly know the Church is infallible?

the Words of Scripture specifically the Words of Christ that he would lead his Church to all truth, and that he would be with his Church, protecting it from error on faith and morals until the end of time. That’s why you can infallibly know that 73 books are inspired and inerrant.

If you can not confidently say the Church is infallible than the 73 book bible (good for you) that you have may or or may not be the Written Word of God. You really wouldn’t know.

Regarding the LCMS Presidents…as an analogy, can you imagine the world-wide uproar if the Pope said the bible was other than 73 books, in contradiction to the Catholic Catechism? Multiple LCMS Presidents are seeding confusion amongst their flock including my LCMS relatives. Adding 2 Maccabees and the praying for the dead is more than they can take.

But your Christendom comment is relevant. Who to believe, 1.4B Catholics & Orthodox from year 400ad or reformers 1,100 years later acting on an unknown authority, removed from the apostolic faith?

If I were protestant holding to Sola Scriptura, this would truly, truly, truly bother me (and I say that with no offense intended). That my bible has only 66 books in it when Christendom for 1,100 years already decided it should have at least 73.

I would rightly question through faith and reason, that I did not have the complete, Written Word of God.

PnP

 

[steido01]

You’re right, Jon, but it seems to me that after you’ve said, “Wow…the Catholics got another one right” a few times, a light bulb ought to go on.

:newidea:

For me, at least, the lightbulb has gone on - we are much closer to unity than I once thought. The ‘stumbling blocks’ that do exist, while still significant, eventually may be overcome with humility from both sides.

 

[Porknpie]

Precisely. LCMS Presidents are just that - presiders. They do not declare dogma. Lutherans are bound to the Confessions, which -as we have mentioned- do not define a canon.

Sidebar - noting President Harrison’s affinity for the Apocrypha (he pushed for the completion of an ESV translation and study notes to be published at CPH - a version that has received praise from some rather learned Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and even members here on CAF), it would not surprise me if he held to a canon longer than 66 books. It also does not surprise me that, in the context of a simple “FAQ,” a different LCMS president would fall back on the 66 books that all agree to be Scripture.

The Truth is the Truth…73 books…otherwise you can not confidently know that even the 66 books in your bible are all inerrant and inspired.

Would Jesus Christ lead his Church in error for 1,100 years? Is that what he meant when he said he’d send the Holy Spirit to lead the Church to all Truth??

 

[pocohombre]

Poco, your Priests and Bishops celebrate Mass as did all the early Churches did that the apostles set up? :nope:

“Early churches” is a broad stroke to which most fit in there somewhere.

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

Yes, the debate of “transmutation” meaning “transubstantiation” or simple"digestion". It reads both ways.

“Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.”” **Cyril of Jerusalem, **Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).

Still a broad stroke to which most comply with,be it “tran” or consubtantiation or spiritual etc.How about Augustine who says leave your teeth and bellies behind, we eat spiritually, by faith, as Peter did by his faith in remaining with Christ for his words were eternal life ?

Are your bishops Catholic??

No, they are catholic.

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

Interesting Ignatius mentions by name some of those bishops of those cities he wrote too but zero mention of any bishops in Rome by name.( a catholic who did not know his head bishop ?)

And do they follow the Catholic Church from Rome?

No, but yes where she is catholic.

]“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,–in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,–and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 20

and he also challenged the idea of succession, “and what you think it(keys) has deferred to you(bishop of Rome) ?”

”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

Cyprian also is not good example of saying early church saw bishop of Rome as being the “head bishop”, and certainly not what CC professes with final evolving of Papacy doctrine (1860 and infallibility)

History is against you Poco. The Church established by Christ was One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, with 7 sacraments.

Yes, part of the Body of Christ believe this.

 

[steido01]

Regarding the LCMS Presidents…as an analogy, can you imagine the world-wide uproar if the Pope said the bible was other than 73 books, in contradiction to the Catholic Catechism? Multiple LCMS Presidents are seeding confusion amongst their flock including my LCMS relatives. Adding 2 Maccabees and the praying for the dead is more than they can take.

Again, the comparison of a President to the Pope doesn’t compute to Lutherans. Lutherans don’t (nay, cannot!) vest that sort of power in one, sinful man. If the Pope declared the canon to be something other than the 73 books acknowledged by the Roman communion, it would likely be a difficult time for Roman Catholics. The Lutheran understanding of ‘canon,’ however, permits a level of variation, just as the Roman Catholic church allowed prior to Trent (see Jerome, Cajetan, Erasmus, etc.).

But your Christendom comment is relevant. Who to believe, 1.4B Catholics & Orthodox from year 400ad or reformers 1,100 years later acting on an unknown authority, removed from the apostolic faith?

You raise a strong point; there is something to be said of the large consensus on these books. And for this reason, I consider the Apocrypha extremely useful for teaching and putting perspective on the faith. But I keep in mind that these books were considered disputed since the beginning. They weren’t suddenly put up for discussion in the 1500’s.

If I were protestant holding to Sola Scriptura, this would truly, truly, truly bother me (and I say that with no offense intended). That my bible has only 66 books in it when Christendom for 1,100 years already decided it should have at least 73.

Your premise that it was the Reformers who first disputed the disputed books is flat wrong, but pretending it were correct? Good thing Lutherans don’t define a canon.

 

[Novocastrian]

Christendom defined the canon at 73 books in the late 4th century, with the Christendom Orthodox types including a few more.

…]

• at least 73 books in the bible.

That’s fairly ambiguous, given the infallible authority of the Roman magisterium exercised at Trent. Do you condemn and anathematise the Orthodox churches for holding extra books as canonical and inspired?

 

[Novocastrian]

As far as I know, it was only the later Anglicans and Presbyterians who rejected them.

The Church of England has never rejected them, and they have been read in our lectionary from the beginning. They are simply accorded, following Jerome, a lesser canonical authority on the basis that they were not retained in the Hebrew Bible. We have erred on the side of caution, but have not rejected them.

 

[Anthony86]

That’s fairly ambiguous, given the infallible authority of the Roman magisterium exercised at Trent. Do you condemn and anathematise the Orthodox churches for holding extra books as canonical and inspired?

Trent can be read as acknowledging the divine inspiration of the 73 books, without claiming no other books are divinely inspired. I don’t think Trent’s definition of the canon is a problem for Catholic-Orthodox relations.

 

[Porknpie]

“Early churches” is a broad stroke to which most fit in there somewhere.

Which don’t Poco?

Yes, the debate of “transmutation” meaning “transubstantiation” or simple"digestion". It reads both ways.

The apostolic Church universally believed in the real body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Nothing symbolic.

This book is almost 5 stars on amazon. . I highly recommended it. The CD is great too. It explains why the early Jewish converts to Christianity readily believed in the Eucharist (and not some 16th century man-made thought of a symbolic meal)

Still a broad stroke to which most comply with,be it “tran” or consubtantiation or spiritual etc.How about Augustine who says leave your teeth and bellies behind, we eat spiritually, by faith, as Peter did by his faith in remaining with Christ for his words were eternal life ?

The Eucharist and Spirituality? Sure, read here. Unlike Bill Clinton, Saint Augustine was clear, just as John 6 is clear. “This IS my body”. Many left Jesus with his saying this and Jesus Christ never corrected anyone. It’s still a hard saying for many today to believe.

“‘And was carried in His Own Hands:’ how ‘carried in His Own Hands’? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, ‘This is My Body.’” Augustine, On the Psalms, 33:1, 10 (A.D. 392-418).

No, they are catholic.

OK, if they have apostolic succession by the laying on of hands then

Interesting Ignatius mentions by name some of those bishops of those cities he wrote too but zero mention of any bishops in Rome by name.( a catholic who did not know his head bishop ?)

Strawman

and he also challenged the idea of succession, “and what you think it(keys) has deferred to you(bishop of Rome) ?”

No I don’t follow this at all. What does this quote have to do with succession?? Some were teaching falsely and we’re kicked out of the Catholic Church. It happens.

Cyprian also is not good example of saying early church saw bishop of Rome as being the “head bishop”, and certainly not what CC professes with final evolving of Papacy doctrine (1860 and infallibility)

Another strawman. Cyprian is talking about those outside of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. This quote has nothing to do with the papacy.

Yes, part of the Body of Christ believe this.

Yes and those the don’t are not in keeping with what Christ taught the apostles and what the apostles taught their descendants.

PnP