The Problem with Protestant Ecclesiology

[SteveVH]

You asked how I determined what had been “corrupted”, an idea to which I had never made any reference. I suggested emending “corruption” to “inaccuracy” because I did talk about the latter. If that is not what you meant, what does corruption have to do with this?

I asked the question because you have made the claim that the scriptures are, we’ll use your term here, “innacurate”. So let me rephrase the question. How does one determine what is accurate and what is innacurate?

This simple dichotomy is not at all logically necessary. A message could be wholly inspired, partially inspired, or wholly uninspired.

Not if the Holy Spirit is truly at work. We do not receive partially true revelation. The Holy Spirit was at work both in the inspiration of the scriptures themselves as well as in the determination of the canon.

Actually, interpretation of Sacred Scripture is a matter very crucially interdependent with the nature of Sacred Scripture.

Agreed, inspired texts require as their compliment an infallible interpreter and there is one authentic and infallible interpreter, the magesterium of the Catholic Church.

To use very simplistic examples, an uninspired text interpreted in an inspired way is what you presumably believe to be the case in Titus 1:12-13;

No, I do not believe this. I believe Titus to be an inspired text because the Church said it was. Neither you nor I have any authority to say otherwise.

an inspired text interpreted in an uninspired fashion is what you presumably believe to be the case in sola scriptura anti-Catholic arguments;

I would agree.

an inspired text intepreted in an inspired fashion is what you presumably believe to be the case in the Magisterium’s views of what Scripture says.

Yes, exactly.

As for what Anglicans generally believe about Scripture, I have already mentioned that views vary. It is not as simple a matter as saying, “If X is an Anglican, then X’s view of Scripture will be exactly Y”.

I’m glad I’m Catholic.

 

[Mystophilus]

I asked the question because you have made the claim that the scriptures are, we’ll use your term here, “innacurate”. So let me rephrase the question. How does one determine what is accurate and what is innacurate?

As I have already stated above, “As for inaccuracy in the original belief, I don’t “determine” it, because I can’t: the great problem with metaphysics is that we cannot prove or disprove it from the physical evidence available to us.”

It might be useful to point out, also, as I said to CopticChristian, that “not believing the Bible to be inerrant and infallible does not mean believing the Bible to be mendacious or corrupt: there is a huge array of possibilities between 100% dependable and 0% dependable”.

A message could be wholly inspired, partially inspired, or wholly uninspired.

Not if the Holy Spirit is truly at work. We do not receive partially true revelation.

The issue is not the truth of the revelation from the Holy Spirit to the writer, but the perfection of the reception by the human writer, who then produces the text, the message to us. Humans are not perfect, and are thus quite capable of imperfectly comprehending what they receive from others, even from God.

The Catholic belief in the Magisterium is not just about a perfect revelation, but about a perfect understanding of a perfect revelation.

No, I do not believe this. I believe Titus to be an inspired text because the Church said it was. Neither you nor I have any authority to say otherwise.

Titus 1:12 includes Paul’s quotation of Epimenides. Do you believe Epimenides’ work to have been an inspired text, independent of Paul’s usage of it?

In any case, the other two comments with which you have agreed do demonstrate the interrelationship between inspiration of writing and inspiration of reading. As mentioned above, the Catholic belief in the Magisterium presumes both of those, but [urel=[URL]http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9917320#poststop]as[/URL] I said in my first comment here, that presumption is not something which has been at all proven to the rest of us.

It is not as simple a matter as saying, “If X is an Anglican, then X’s view of Scripture will be exactly Y”.

I’m glad I’m Catholic.

I am truly happy to hear it, but, for this very reason, I am gladly not Catholic.

 

[CopticChristian]

So, what makes the Catholic Church more believable than the JWs or Mormons?

My,

You said…

If you show me the politeness of answering my question, I will be able to start doing so.

I answered

My,

What question?

You responded…

Why do you believe in the Trinity?

I answered…

My,

Well it is because I have a well formed ecclesiology that tells me that the Trinity was espoused by the Church, the Church is the Pillar and foundation of truth, from which the manifold wisdom of God is known and that is what I was taught and believe. It is in the Catechism, the Faith, in writing.

I tried the shamrock thing, Aquinas, listened to the Jehovah Witness, Mormons and other non-trinitarians but I go with the Trinity even though I can’t wrap my head around it.

You now ask me a question, suggesting you wanted a polite answer to a request. I suggest you return the favor and answer the question I posed.

 

[Mystophilus]

My apologies, I am sincerely endeavouring to do so, and, to that end, am trying to avoid misunderstanding what you are saying.

I asked why you believe in the Trinity, and you said, essentially, that you believe because the Church teaches it, whereas these other groups do not. You are not saying that you flipped a coin, and so decided to believe what the one teaches rather than what the others teach, are you?

(BTW, what is “the shamrock thing”? That reference has me completely lost.)

 

[Mystophilus]

By the way, because I know that internet forums and conversations can occasionally be plagued by immaturities of all kinds, I just want to go on record assuring you that I am not “up to anything” in our conversation in this thread. There is no trick, no trap, no point at which I have any desire to lure you into saying anything which I could then seize upon and use to defame the holy Church in whom you have so much admirable faith. Nor am I attempting to alter your faith in any fashion.

My questions might seem a little odd, even somewhat stupid, but I am merely seeking to better understand exactly how you believe, so that I can answer the original question in the clearest fashion. I realise that I am thus presuming upon your charity, but I trust you to have enough to see this through.

With love in Christ,
M

 

[Taestron]

The issue is not the truth of the revelation from the Holy Spirit to the writer, but the perfection of the reception by the human writer, who then produces the text, the message to us. Humans are not perfect, and are thus quite capable of imperfectly comprehending what they receive from others, even from God.

The Catholic belief in the Magisterium is not just about a perfect revelation, but about a perfect understanding of a perfect revelation.

If I may interject here. I think that this is the issue that Dan Wallace’s article was trying to address. Wallace is a very careful text-critical scholar; to be in that field and remain an evangelical protestant is something to marvel. The fact that he can look at Scripture with all its variants and come to the conclusion that (theoretically) no doctrine would be changed no matter the choice on any particular variant is something that many text critics cannot stomach (ala Bart Ehrman). To have a perfect revelation but not have the ecclesiology in place to properly understand that revelation, that seems more pitiful than if we didn’t have perfect revelation at all.

 

[CopticChristian]

Taestron;9941909

If I may interject here. I think that this is the issue that Dan Wallace’s article was trying to address. Wallace is a very careful text-critical scholar; to be in that field and remain an evangelical protestant is something to marvel. The fact that he can look at Scripture with all its variants and come to the conclusion that (theoretically) no doctrine would be changed no matter the choice on any particular variant is something that many text critics cannot stomach (ala Bart Ehrman). To have a perfect revelation but not have the ecclesiology in place to properly understand that revelation, that seems more pitiful than if we didn’t have perfect revelation at all.

Tae,

Name and identify elements of this perfect revelation.

 

[Taestron]

Taestron;9941909

Tae,

Name and identify elements of this perfect revelation.

Scripture…being the very Word of God it can be nothing less than complete and infallible.

As a protestant, I don’t have the ecclesiology necessary to claim anything else as perfect revelation. I had wished that Dan Wallace would have said more in his article, but just the fact that other protestants are seeing the problem of not being able to be sure of any understanding of Scripture without ecclesiology is a start.

 

[CopticChristian]

Scripture…being the very Word of God it can be nothing less than complete and infallible.

As a protestant, I don’t have the ecclesiology necessary to claim anything else as perfect revelation. I had wished that Dan Wallace would have said more in his article, but just the fact that other protestants are seeing the problem of not being able to be sure of any understanding of Scripture without ecclesiology is a start.

Tae,

Do you mean the translations? There is no original Scripture.

ag.org/top/

ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_P…_inerrancy.pdf

1. We refer to original autographs. While the science of textual criticism assures
   us of a trustworthy text, inerrancy can be claimed only for the original writings (Jeremiah
   36:2).

1. Since we do not have the original autographs, any doctrine of inerrancy is
   without value.

champs-of-truth.com/reform/STN_MBTU.PDF

No translation is perfect. It may even be persuasively argued that no exact
copies of the original autographs still exist. This view
has led to the deplorable situation where some “translations” have only
scant resemblance to the sacred truth enshrined in the Scriptures.

If no manuscript in the original language is a perfect reproduction of the original writings, then it is impossible for any translation from these imperfect manuscripts to be perfect.

Which translation do you use? How can you be sure that this is perfect? Where did the translations commence? In other words how is that we have a Bible absent an ecclesiology.

What is the perfect method that we have what you say is Scripture?

 

[englishredrose]

why is there so much them and us and us and them and somewhere in between when we are all Christian?

I would be happier if you had written in the title thread, The Problem with Protestant Ecclesiology - In My Opinion… or words to that effect.

Its not suprising you think it a problem because you have been taught something else. And to post it on a predominantly Catholic forum you are going to get certain postive reponsive to your posting. Okay I grant you that you have placed it in a non Catholic Thread but a lot of Catholics post there thinking or not thinking may be, not understanding that there will be some non Catholic outlooks per se there.

I would like to know if you have tried posting the same post onto a non Catholic forum, ie a Protestant forum and collect their replies and make a fair summary of the replies here and there. I be more interested in the difference of response then. So okay some here post to your reply aren’t Catholic.

But its amazing how we all suddenly know what the other is when it comes to a strong opinion about them fed to us by others sources…

Yes go ahead and tell me I don’t know because that is an easy get out card…:grouphug:

peace
xxx

 

[CopticChristian]

why is there so much them and us and us and them and somewhere in between when we are all Christian?

I would be happier if you had written in the title thread, The Problem with Protestant Ecclesiology - In My Opinion… or words to that effect.

Its not suprising you think it a problem because you have been taught something else. And to post it on a predominantly Catholic forum you are going to get certain postive reponsive to your posting. Okay I grant you that you have placed it in a non Catholic Thread but a lot of Catholics post there thinking or not thinking may be, not understanding that there will be some non Catholic outlooks per se there.

I would like to know if you have tried posting the same post onto a non Catholic forum, ie a Protestant forum and collect their replies and make a fair summary of the replies here and there. I be more interested in the difference of response then. So okay some here post to your reply aren’t Catholic.

But its amazing how we all suddenly know what the other is when it comes to a strong opinion about them fed to us by others sources…

Yes go ahead and tell me I don’t know because that is an easy get out card…:grouphug:

peace
xxx

Red,

To whom is this directed and what is your question?

 

[Patavium]

Why should we strive to follow as accurately as possible what Jesus Christ taught? That is the main reason why we should question the origin of the church you attend. Also, Am I looking for a Church that agrees with me or am I looking for the Church founded by Jesus Christ?

 

[CopticChristian]

Why should we strive to follow as accurately as possible what Jesus Christ taught? That is the main reason why we should question the origin of the church you attend. Also, Am I looking for a Church that agrees with me or am I looking for the Church founded by Jesus Christ?

Pat,

I am looking a Church that agrees with me.

I am looking at the origin of the Church I attend.

I am looking and see that the Church I attend and it’s origin are closest to the Church Christ founded.

I’m in…

 

[Taestron]

Tae,

Do you mean the translations? There is no original Scripture.

Which translation do you use? How can you be sure that this is perfect? Where did the translations commence? In other words how is that we have a Bible absent an ecclesiology.

What is the perfect method that we have what you say is Scripture?

Well, I don’t disagree with you. I was merely trying to explain things from an evangelical perspective. BTW, have you ever read the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, found here? It is a little dated, but it is still the best pan-denominational work on inerrancy extant. Even though I essentially agree with the critique in your link about inerrancy, I don’t know if it as clear as sometimes is let on to believe.

The discipline of Protestant text criticism is focused on ascertaining as much as possible the original text of the documents, and not what became the authoritative standard in the West (the Vulgate) or the East (the Byzantine text). Even though we can never be 100% sure that we have arrived at that goal, the evidence does point to two things: 1) that the text is remarkably well preserved considering its age and other factors and 2) that even when the experts disagree on the originality of any one particular variant, most would say that none of these issues would affect our understanding of the text. This leads most evangelical Protestants to say that for all practical intents and purposes, we do have access to the original revelation of God.

Now that is the Protestant perspective with which I disagree. I just wanted to point out where Dan Wallace was coming from in his article. This doesn’t touch, as you pointed out the issue of translating the text into another language. My point was that it seems pitiful that even if we Protestants have experts like Dan Wallace giving evidence that we do indeed have access to the Perfect Revelation of God, if we cannot reliably interpret the Word of God, as is evidenced by the complete and utter fracturing of Protestantism, we have gained nothing.

Not to be too negative, there are some positive trends withing Protestant scholarship. Dan Wallace advocates reading with the historic Church in his article, and there is a movement called Theological Interpretation of Scripture that seeks to do the same. However, these movements mainly find their fulfillment at the denominational level, and there are very few scholars working on a pan-denomination, Protestant ecclesiology. But I hope for better in the future.

 

[CopticChristian]

Well, I don’t disagree with you. I was merely trying to explain things from an evangelical perspective. BTW, have you ever read the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, found here? It is a little dated, but it is still the best pan-denominational work on inerrancy extant. Even though I essentially agree with the critique in your link about inerrancy, I don’t know if it as clear as sometimes is let on to believe.

The discipline of Protestant text criticism is focused on ascertaining as much as possible the original text of the documents, and not what became the authoritative standard in the West (the Vulgate) or the East (the Byzantine text). Even though we can never be 100% sure that we have arrived at that goal, the evidence does point to two things: 1) that the text is remarkably well preserved considering its age and other factors and 2) that even when the experts disagree on the originality of any one particular variant, most would say that none of these issues would affect our understanding of the text. This leads most evangelical Protestants to say that for all practical intents and purposes, we do have access to the original revelation of God.

Now that is the Protestant perspective with which I disagree. I just wanted to point out where Dan Wallace was coming from in his article. This doesn’t touch, as you pointed out the issue of translating the text into another language. My point was that it seems pitiful that even if we Protestants have experts like Dan Wallace giving evidence that we do indeed have access to the Perfect Revelation of God, if we cannot reliably interpret the Word of God, as is evidenced by the complete and utter fracturing of Protestantism, we have gained nothing.

Not to be too negative, there are some positive trends withing Protestant scholarship. Dan Wallace advocates reading with the historic Church in his article, and there is a movement called Theological Interpretation of Scripture that seeks to do the same. However, these movements mainly find their fulfillment at the denominational level, and there are very few scholars working on a pan-denomination, Protestant ecclesiology. But I hope for better in the future.

Tae,

So explain for me, as you post this, the issues presented.

**The authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian Church in this and every age. **

This statement implores the reader to investigate the history of the Christian Church in every age and know what it is and it is not. Is it Protestant?.:nope:

**

We deny that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.

**

This denial in essence denies the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. So where does that leave you?

**

We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.

**

This statement begs the question. Where does the bible get it authority?

**

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church’s faith throughout its history.

**

This statement then suggests that whatever preceeded and follows is consistent with how the bible was declared to be inerrant. Again the reader has to correlate that for sanity as to how the Church, as the statement says, the history of the Christian Church. What is the history of the Christian Church?

**

We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by Scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

**

This denial has to conform to the dictate that the Christian Church in every age has applied the doctrine of inerrancy without Church, Tradition or any other source.

I hope for better in the future however it will not come by corporate decree, council, or any scholarship. It comes by individual. There are examples. John Heny Neuman, Scott Hahn and others…a resolution to a problem that faces those that deny authority is to accept authority and be done with it…

P.S. In consideration that we understand the Chicago Statement, there has to be throughtout history some documents that agree with the Chicago Statement or the Chicago Statement is just a toddling town…

 

[Porknpie]

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church’s faith throughout its history.

Sounds very Catholic. An inerrant Church gave you an inerrant biblical canon. If true, why then would you doubt & deny the same Church on faith & morals and interpretation of the bible?

 

[SteveVH]

Sounds very Catholic. An inerrant Church gave you an inerrant biblical canon. If true, why then would you doubt & deny the same Church on faith & morals and interpretation of the bible?

Its a great question. One should also consider that the Church flourished for nearly 400 years without the Bible as we know it. Others will argue that it had the texts even though they had not yet been canonized. But it had a lot of writings, many beautiful and true, which were determined not to be inspired. I would challenge anyone to read Clement’s letter to the Corinthinas and compare it to any of the epistles of the New Testament. Could one, on their own, determine which was inspired and which was not? I certainly could not. The truth of the matter is that the only way we know that the books of the Bible are inspired is because the Church told us they were. Non-Catholics, at least the great majority, will disagree with this assessment, but it is my belief that they are in denial. And they must be, because if they accepted that the Church had the authority to determine what is inspired and what is not, they would also have to accept the Church’s authority on faith and morals and interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

 

[Taestron]

Sounds very Catholic. An inerrant Church gave you an inerrant biblical canon. If true, why then would you doubt & deny the same Church on faith & morals and interpretation of the bible?

The traditional answer is that just as God worked through fallible humans in order to write Scripture, he worked through a fallible Church to canonize Scripture. Now if you would ask them why would God give us infallible Scripture without also giving us an infallible means to interpret it… there we don’t have a satisfying answer.

This statement implores the reader to investigate the history of the Christian Church in every age and know what it is and it is not. Is it Protestant?.:nope:

Yes and no. I agree that if we are to examine history and come to the conclusion that every protestant should get up in the morning and justify being away from RC Church. However, I think you might be missing the point of this paragraph. Here is the full context

The authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian Church in this and every age. Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God’s written Word. To Stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority.

This paragraph is merely explaining the importance of having a proper view of the Word of God precisely because in every age, Scripture must be considered to be the authoritative Word of God.

This denial in essence denies the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. So where does that leave you?

Even though the Chicago Statement can never have the same amount of authority that Scripture has (or the ecumenical councils for that matter), it can still have authority, especially for those who have chosen to sign onto the statement.

This statement begs the question. Where does the bible get it authority?

The Bible gets its authority from God, who is its author. Under this view, the Church can recognize this authority, but it can never give it authority.

This statement then suggests that whatever preceeded and follows is consistent with how the bible was declared to be inerrant. Again the reader has to correlate that for sanity as to how the Church, as the statement says, the history of the Christian Church. What is the history of the Christian Church?

No argument from me here. Even though I think it might be correct, I don’t know if you could ever satisfyingly prove that in a short statement such as this.

This denial has to conform to the dictate that the Christian Church in every age has applied the doctrine of inerrancy without Church, Tradition or any other source.

I’m not sure this is true. In reality the Chicago Statement is an exposition on the following Syllogism: “If Scripture is the Word of God, then we cannot place any other authority above it be it reason or tradition.” Even though the language of inerrancy might be a Protestant invention, that syllogism can be true throughout all the Church. And the statement is sufficiently broad that those evangelicals that do have tradition as another kind of authority can indeed sign on to this statement (as long as they do not place tradition over Scripture).

I hope for better in the future however it will not come by corporate decree, council, or any scholarship. It comes by individual. There are examples. John Heny Neuman, Scott Hahn and others…a resolution to a problem that faces those that deny authority is to accept authority and be done with it…

I’m inclined to agree with you here. But if all those individuals abandon Protestantism for Catholicism, then who will lead the rest? There needs to be some ecclesial minded individuals who remain in Protestantism who work toward bettering their fellows understanding of the issues at stake.

 

[CopticChristian]

The traditional answer is that just as God worked through fallible humans in order to write Scripture, he worked through a fallible Church to canonize Scripture. Now if you would ask them why would God give us infallible Scripture without also giving us an infallible means to interpret it… there we don’t have a satisfying answer.

Yes and no. I agree that if we are to examine history and come to the conclusion that every protestant should get up in the morning and justify being away from RC Church. However, I think you might be missing the point of this paragraph. Here is the full context

This paragraph is merely explaining the importance of having a proper view of the Word of God precisely because in every age, Scripture must be considered to be the authoritative Word of God.

Even though the Chicago Statement can never have the same amount of authority that Scripture has (or the ecumenical councils for that matter), it can still have authority, especially for those who have chosen to sign onto the statement.

The Bible gets its authority from God, who is its author. Under this view, the Church can recognize this authority, but it can never give it authority.

No argument from me here. Even though I think it might be correct, I don’t know if you could ever satisfyingly prove that in a short statement such as this.

I’m not sure this is true. In reality the Chicago Statement is an exposition on the following Syllogism: “If Scripture is the Word of God, then we cannot place any other authority above it be it reason or tradition.” Even though the language of inerrancy might be a Protestant invention, that syllogism can be true throughout all the Church. And the statement is sufficiently broad that those evangelicals that do have tradition as another kind of authority can indeed sign on to this statement (as long as they do not place tradition over Scripture).

I’m inclined to agree with you here. But if all those individuals abandon Protestantism for Catholicism, then who will lead the rest? There needs to be some ecclesial minded individuals who remain in Protestantism who work toward bettering their fellows understanding of the issues at stake.

Tae,

Protestants like Scott Hahn do more service, provide more leadership, in than outside the Church. Do you cease to be Christian when you abandon Protestant thought?

 

[bmonk]

So, what makes the Catholic Church more believable than the JWs or Mormons?

Because we were founded by Jesus, who promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 14–16) to the disciples to stay with them, guide them to all truth, and remind us of all that Jesus taught. The JWs and Mormons cannot claim this in the same simple way. At best they can say, “We are what the followers of Jesus should have been,” which indicates that God made some sort of mistake the first time around.

Notice particularly John 15:26-27: ““When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me. And you also testify, because you have been with me from the beginning.” This cuts out the Mormons and JWs–they were hardly with Jesus “from the beginning.”

Also, the Catholic Church has a consistent understanding, one big enough to be able to encompass all human experience and understanding–such as science, or history. I do not believe the JWs or Mormons can be said to be similarly consistent.