Where do Protestants say we received the Biblical Canon?

[JonNC]

=inkaneer;10114017]
Regardless, Luther’s real reason why he did not think the deuteros were inspired was because they contradicted some of his doctrines.

Source, please. And please be specific as to what particular doctrine each of the seven books contains that Luther disagreed with. If the reason for Luther questioning the 7 books is because of doctrine, there must be a doctrine in each book that he didn’t agree with. Otherwise, the fact is his dispute is in line with the historic dispute regarding them.

Let’s not make Luther into some kind of glorified canonical superman.

No superman, but he was pretty darn well educated in it.

We all know what he thought of the Epistle of James and why.

Yes we do.

“…I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative.”

“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;

“In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works [2:24]. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac [2:21]; though in Romans 4:2–22] St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6]. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works [Jas. 2:23] of Moses’ statement in Genesis 15:6]. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham’s faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.”

“In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15:27], “You shall bear witness to me.” All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [treiben] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3:21]; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2:2]. Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it.”[65]

It’s all about authorship, not doctrine.

He wanted to remove it as well as other NT books from the canon as well but others intervened. And as far as building ‘a theological house of cards on a controversial book’ it seems the only controversy about the deuteros, as well as the NT books, resided with Luther. They were canonical for 1100 years before Luther and still are.

Source, please, where Luther himself says “I want to remove these books.”

The dueteros were canonical? Why, then does Luther contemporary Cardinal Cajetan say:

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

Jon

 

[joe370]

Aquila Lucis;10088097]Primarily, I am hoping that some intelligent non-Catholics browsing here can help to answer this, though any Catholics with legitimate answers would be welcome to help explain, as well.

It has seemed to me that, given that Protestant apologists will try and debunk Catholic doctrine on the basis that there is not an explicit Scritural refernce to it, the biggest hole in that argument is there is, then, no explanation as to how we (that is to say humanity, and specifically in tis situation, Protestants) received the Biblical Canon.

Good point. As a former protestant I had to ask myself the same question regarding the protestant doctrine called sola scriptura. Much to my surprise and chagrin, there is no implicit or explicit scriptural reference to it.

How do Protestants know that the table of contents in their Bibles contains a complete list?

I went to the source of that list, i.e. the catholic church.

Or that the one in Catholic Bibles contains so-called “unauthorized” additons?

I think you are referring to the OT deuteronomical books? My research indicated that they were never excluded, and, at the time, I was hoping that they were…

How do they know that what is, in fact, in their Bible is truly Inspired?

Scripture tells us that all scripture is inspired. However, scripture is silent as to which books are inspired, minus the table of contents.

There is no set of instructions within anyone’s Bible (so far as I am aware) which gives a formula for determining what is or is not Inspired Scripture.

Take the catholic church out of the equation, and it is merely blind faith…

Therefor, the Canon itself must have come from outside the Bible, and would thus contradict the notion that things not explicitly mentioned within Scripture are fallible.

Exactly, thereby making the source of infallible scripture - fallible, ergo the contradiction.

So, what, then, is the Protestant answer to this question? Where did the Canon come from?

Jesus is the Divine Author, Who guided His church teaching office to pen His word and safeguard it, and the CC is that one church simply because that church is the church of Pentecost, and that church was responsible for preserving and eventually determining the table of contents, at a time when at least 7 NT books were considered questionable. You and I embrace the books found in the holy bible because the CC put them there so long ago.

 

[joe370]

? Hence, the list needs be authoritative as well if it is to be of use.

Bingo!!! Where did the list come from…? The CC.

 

[joe370]

JonNC;10162872]
No superman, but he was pretty darn well educated in it.

Actually, in my opinion, based on his writings, Martin Luther was really smart…He just went another way at a time when church upheaval, in terms of abuses, was so prevalent where he resided. I would have been terribly frustrated as well, if I had been in his shoes…

 

[JonNC]

Bingo!!! Where did the list come from…? The CC.

What about the Orthodox list?

But even throughout the history of the western Church, until Trent, the “list” has included books that were universally attested, and books that have been disputed. What protestants, including American Lutherans, need to realize is that even the dueterocanonical books are part of our history as Christians, and they can serve to teach and enlighten us about our faith.

Jon

 

[batman1973]

:bigyikes: What? You telling me it didn’t drop straight down from Heaven?


Ok then I’ll wait for the correct answer then!

WHAT?! Awww, man! There went my day. The cannon was invented in the SONG dynasty of China around 1128. Huh? wrong cannon? Oh, then the Catholic Church

 

[joe370]

What about the Orthodox list?

But even throughout the history of the western Church, until Trent, the “list” has included books that were universally attested, and books that have been disputed. What protestants, including American Lutherans, need to realize is that even the dueterocanonical books are part of our history as Christians, and they can serve to teach and enlighten us about our faith.

Jon

I agree. However, I have many family members and friends within the protestant sphere and they all claim that my bible is a little heavy due to those 7 books. LOL…None of them agree with you.

 

[GodCommands]

Hi folks,
I’m new here, but I do know my protestant Baptist history (even though I am also a confirmed catholic - long story, but the short of it is my soul belongs to no church… but to god only). Here’s the End All To Be All as I see it (maybe only me): Martin Luther was the ‘author’ of the protestant church. he was catholic. he only broke away because the way that the catholic Church taught, no peasant could understand. I.e., they gave sermons in Latin when no one understood it… let alone how to read the English language! Only priests were allowed to understand the Word of God.

Yes, the canonized books of the Catholics are also OUR books. Well, with the exception of the books of the Apocraphy. Not sure I understand that. Must’ve not fit with our overall mssg? Anyway, a Christian IS A Christian. God bless the Cath’s, the Prots and any other believer in Christ. I also pray that God’s Chosen - the Jews - will one day see what I do as a christian, though I have a feeling that they are just fine without me!

Keith

 

[SteveVH]

Hi folks,
I’m new here, but I do know my protestant Baptist history (even though I am also a confirmed catholic - long story, but the short of it is my soul belongs to no church… but to god only).

Interesting. May I ask why you believe that Jesus started a Church if he did not intend for his followers to belong to it?

Here’s the End All To Be All as I see it (maybe only me): Martin Luther was the ‘author’ of the protestant church. he was catholic. he only broke away because the way that the catholic Church taught, no peasant could understand. I.e., they gave sermons in Latin when no one understood it… let alone how to read the English language! Only priests were allowed to understand the Word of God.

You are incorrect. Sermons were always given in the vernacular. The language of the Mass was retained in Latin because of the precise meaning of the words. But the people were taught in their own language. To say that only priests were allowed to understand the Word of God is absolutely inaccurate.

As to vernacular versions of the Bible, here are a few, translated by the Catholic Church, we precede Martin Luther’s translation:

• In the earliest years of Christianity, a Syriac version of the Old Testament made directly from the Hebrew text was employed in the Syrian Church, but in the seventh century, Paul, Bishop of Tella, gave the Monophysites a translation (617 A.D.) from the Septuagint.

Yes, the canonized books of the Catholics are also OUR books. Well, with the exception of the books of the Apocraphy. Not sure I understand that. Must’ve not fit with our overall mssg? Anyway, a Christian IS A Christian. God bless the Cath’s, the Prots and any other believer in Christ. I also pray that God’s Chosen - the Jews - will one day see what I do as a christian, though I have a feeling that they are just fine without me!

Keith

 

[SteveVH]

Hi folks,
I’m new here, but I do know my protestant Baptist history (even though I am also a confirmed catholic - long story, but the short of it is my soul belongs to no church… but to god only).

Interesting. May I ask why you believe that Jesus started a Church if he did not intend for his followers to belong to it?

Here’s the End All To Be All as I see it (maybe only me): Martin Luther was the ‘author’ of the protestant church. he was catholic. he only broke away because the way that the catholic Church taught, no peasant could understand. I.e., they gave sermons in Latin when no one understood it… let alone how to read the English language! Only priests were allowed to understand the Word of God.

Not sure how you arrived at your conclusions but they have nothing to do with reality. Sermons have always been given in the vernacular for the very reason that the Church does want people to understand the word of God. If you will do a little research you will find that the Catholic Church had approximately 14 versions of the Bible, if I remember correctly, which were translated into the vernacular before Martin Luther was even born. The point is that the majority of the world was illiterate at that time in history and we also had no printing press. To mass publish Bibles in the vernacular was not only an impossibility but unnecessary at the time. No one could read them.

Yes, the canonized books of the Catholics are also OUR books. Well, with the exception of the books of the Apocraphy. Not sure I understand that. Must’ve not fit with our overall mssg?

Do you understand that it is not the job of the Christian to accept or reject Sacred Scripture based upon which message one wishes to convey? Rather it is the job of the Christian to accept Sacred Scripture because it is the revealed word of God and to conform one’s life to the truth found there. This cannot be done, however, apart from the faith from which the Bible came. When that is done one ends up with what we have today: over 30,000 faith communities believing different things.

Anyway, a Christian IS A Christian. God bless the Cath’s, the Prots and any other believer in Christ.

A Christian is a Christian? What about those who love to arrive at funerals of fallen soldiers for the purpose of mocking and harassing their family members? What about those who deny the divinity of Christ? What about those who deny the Trinity? There are a lot of groups who wish to call themselves “Christian”.

 

[JonNC]

Hi folks,
I’m new here, but I do know my protestant Baptist history (even though I am also a confirmed catholic - long story, but the short of it is my soul belongs to no church… but to god only). Here’s the End All To Be All as I see it (maybe only me): Martin Luther was the ‘author’ of the protestant church. he was catholic. he only broke away because the way that the catholic Church taught, no peasant could understand. I.e., they gave sermons in Latin when no one understood it… let alone how to read the English language! Only priests were allowed to understand the Word of God.

Keith

Luther never would have made this claim, nor would he have denied membership in Christ’s Church as you seem to have.

Jon

 

[SAVINGRACE]

It’s kind of amusing to read the pronouns “She” here a lot…as in “*her *leadership” and “she discerned”…when the bible books were mostly or all written by males, mostly about the deeds of males, and when it came time to decide which books were to be included in the canon–all those decisions were made by groups of males (the bishops at the meetings?)…and then in the church, all the teachings are taught by male priests…and the head of the church, the pope, is a man…

So to hear the pronoun “She” sounds so…oddly contrary to the ear.

The Church is referred to as the Bride of Christ.

We have hundreds of formidable ladies in the Church, Mary, Mary Magdalene, Mother Teresa and all the wonderful female Saints such as Joan of Arc, St Mary McKillop and St Edith Stein.

We are all part of the same Body of Christ but contribute in different ways.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

They cannot deny that the process of a canon was developed by the church. The apostles had no concept of a group of specifically 66 books which were to be divine and inerrent scripture over and above the church. That fact is simply reflected in what the apostles actually did, because if they believed as protestants did they would not feel the need to actually establish churches and teach people orally over and above just giving them writings. If protestantism were right in sola scriptura, the apostles first priority above all would have been to write a core text and get as much resources as possible to do this, but we know they didn’t make this a priority and probably wrote little compared to that which they taught orally. The apostles and those who followed them did not seek to give out a book, but the message of the gospel, which is no doubt in the bible. But are we really to believe that when Saint paul was preaching he was conciously aware of what he was going to write in scripture and what he was not going to write in scripture, thus distinguishing between oral revelation he had not written down then? Did he say to the Corinthians

“What I said just then, isn’t as authoritative as waht Im going to say now, which is your final authority.”

The mere fact that Christ gave an exhaustive commentary on the entire bible, well the parts of the old testament we know he would have accepted and that we don’t have access to this commentary, is evidence of an authority that would otherwise be oral that is totally equal to scripture. In fact such a commentary would be above scripture because it came directly from God and God did not merely inspire it. I do think there is a difference between inspiration and direct oral commands and teachings from God.

Ultimately the canon, the bible, has been preserved and maintained by a lesser authority which protestants are forced to accept but why they accept it when it means accepting a lesser authority establishing the greatest possible authority and think it can be consistent with their doctrine, is something that only their faith can preserve.

 

[JonNC]

=IgnatianPhilo;10950480]They cannot deny that the process of a canon was developed by the church. The apostles had no concept of a group of specifically 66 books which were to be divine and inerrent scripture over and above the church. That fact is simply reflected in what the apostles actually did, because if they believed as protestants did they would not feel the need to actually establish churches and teach people orally over and above just giving them writings.

There is no need to deny the role of the Church in developing a canon (rule) for any number of things, including scripture.
As for establishing churches, the bolded is confusing. Since the Church is the congregation of saints where the word is preached and sacraments administered, establishing local churches is critical, for no where else are the means of grace available to the believer. It is in the local churches where we receive the Eucharist, receive Holy Absolution, where we are taught the faith. These are the role of the Church. Sola scriptura supports the teaching and sanctifying role of the Church.

If protestantism were right in sola scriptura, the apostles first priority above all would have been to write a core text and get as much resources as possible to do this, but we know they didn’t make this a priority and probably wrote little compared to that which they taught orally. The apostles and those who followed them did not seek to give out a book, but the message of the gospel, which is no doubt in the bible. But are we really to believe that when Saint paul was preaching he was conciously aware of what he was going to write in scripture and what he was not going to write in scripture, thus distinguishing between oral revelation he had not written down then?

Again, a complete misunderstanding of what sola scriptura is. But let me approach this from a different angle.
As an Orthodox Christian, do you believe that the Catholic Church has it right regarding Tradition? Papal supremacy? The IC? The Filioque ?
If not, then you must admit that Sacred Tradition is not consistently interpreted by the Church. Where else can we turn?

And that’s the role of sola scriptura. It is the practice of the Church to hold teachers, teachings, doctrine and dogmas, accountable to scripture as the final norm. It doesn’t exclude Tradition, nor does it compromise the teaching role of the Church. It certainly doesn’t replace the role of the Church to provide the means of grace, word and sacrament .

Ultimately the canon, the bible, has been preserved and maintained by a lesser authority which protestants are forced to accept but why they accept it when it means accepting a lesser authority establishing the greatest possible authority and think it can be consistent with their doctrine, is something that only their faith can preserve.

If we accept that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, and we also are willing to look at the history of the Church, what the ECFs said about about the various books, we can come to prayerful acceptance of the canon, that it includes books that are universally attested, and that it includes books that have been historically disputed within the Church. Then we can carefully use the canon (rule) based on the experience of the early Church.

Jon

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Lets define our terms, what is sola scriptura? What is church? Sola scriptura as Lutherans might understand it is the idea that scripture is the highest authority, the supreme court of appeal if you would, the ultimate standard by which everything is judged. Am I mistaken in that matter? Now what is a church? We certaintly have a common idea but we would disagree as to the churches authority, ie I say it and the church is equal to scripture along with its tradition while you necessarily relegate church and tradition to a lesser authority. For the protestant is scripture that is the standard, anything beyond scripture Is not binding, is not needed, it is sufficient in of itself for the person.

That’s the idea I have the most problem with, because it cannot be denied (as you have not denied it) that the lower authority, not the final and ultimate authority, is responsible for the scripture’s preservation, canonisation and reorganisation. Iraneaus recognises the scripture not in of itself, but because of its apostolicity, a decidedly extra biblical idea and this was the mode those fathers who we have inherited our respective bibles used to give us a set of basic books. 66 for Luthernas and 76 for Orthodox respectively. Given all this I do not understand how sola scriptura, which has to be the court of appeal, the final authority helps in regaurd to say recognising the scripture in of itself. Where does the bible say “Listen to these books and only these books and these are your final authority?”

That being said with regaurds to tradition I am fully aware of the differences all throughout history, this hardly supports sola scriptura given that the bible wasn’t able to solve the problem in the first place. People would stick to their sides more often than not and in the end the victors won, I believe God sorts it out over the centuries and that all of our answers, while biblical and not from the bible in of itself. The Trinitarian debates of the fourth century were not using biblical terms, but terms like Homousious, Heterousious, Hypostasis and various other greek and latin words. So the church can work out differences on the filioque within the church I believe but that doesn’t support sola scriptura.

Take in mind that my main criticism of sola scriptura is that the protestant has to, absolutely has to, rely on the history of the church, our fathers, our writings, our history (which in of itself preserved the bible) in order to have a bible as the final authority in which to deny our faith in the first place. Its one of inconsistent authority, why is the bible the final authority for all things when it comes to the protestant interpretation of it, but when we question what should be scripture suddenly the fathers who have a bible resembling the 66 books are quoted as authority? Or do you think the case can be made that the bible in of itself without recourse to the church can establish itself in even the most basic 66 form protestants now accept? I don’t think you do.

But its interesting that in saying the church was guided by the holy spirit it is able to decide on the canon. What does that imply? Doesn’t that imply the church has an equal authority to establish scripture as scripture for itself and teaching? Or is this the only thing the church has been guided by God to be absolutely authoritative on? There are older and much more well attested doctrines than that of a biblical canon, ie apostolic succession.

 

[JonNC]

=IgnatianPhilo;10950980]Lets define our terms, what is sola scriptura? What is church? Sola scriptura as Lutherans might understand it is the idea that scripture is the highest authority, the supreme court of appeal if you would, the ultimate standard by which everything is judged. Am I mistaken in that matter? Now what is a church? We certaintly have a common idea but we would disagree as to the churches authority, ie I say it and the church is equal to scripture along with its tradition while you necessarily relegate church and tradition to a lesser authority. For the protestant is scripture that is the standard, anything beyond scripture Is not binding, is not needed, it is sufficient in of itself for the person.

Sola scriptura is, indeed, the final norm, by which the Church holds teaches, etc accountable. Yes. It is the Church, however, that determines doctrine, hence, the existence of the Lutheran Confessions. From a Lutheran perspective, while no other writing or writer is equal to scripture, these are important witnesses to the truth of scripture. So, as a Lutheran, I am bound to the confessions as a reflection of the truth of scripture, and I am bound to the truth of three creeds.

That’s the idea I have the most problem with, because it cannot be denied (as you have not denied it) that the lower authority, not the final and ultimate authority, is responsible for the scripture’s preservation, canonisation and reorganisation. Iraneaus recognises the scripture not in of itself, but because of its apostolicity, a decidedly extra biblical idea and this was the mode those fathers who we have inherited our respective bibles used to give us a set of basic books. 66 for Luthernas and 76 for Orthodox respectively. Given all this I do not understand how sola scriptura, which has to be the court of appeal, the final authority helps in regaurd to say recognising the scripture in of itself. Where does the bible say “Listen to these books and only these books and these are your final authority?”

Since we recognize the Church as having the authority to teach, it isn’t inconsistent at all for us to recognize the Church in receiving scripture. As a side note, the Lutheran confessions do not establish a 66 book canon. What is true is that Lutheranism does look to the early Church and determines the role of the protocanonical and deutercanonical books.
So, it isn’t the practice of sola scriptura to determine the canon of scripture, or any canon for that matter. The Church sets doctrine, using scripture as the norm needed to hold it accountable.

That being said with regaurds to tradition I am fully aware of the differences all throughout history, this hardly supports sola scriptura given that the bible wasn’t able to solve the problem in the first place. People would stick to their sides more often than not and in the end the victors won, I believe God sorts it out over the centuries and that all of our answers, while biblical and not from the bible in of itself. The Trinitarian debates of the fourth century were not using biblical terms, but terms like Homousious, Heterousious, Hypostasis and various other greek and latin words. So the church can work out differences on the filioque within the church I believe but that doesn’t support sola scriptura.

Well, one would hope that the Church can work these things out, but I suspect you might agree that both Tradition and scripture seem to oppose the concept of papal universal jurisdiction.

Take in mind that my main criticism of sola scriptura is that the protestant has to, absolutely has to, rely on the history of the church, our fathers, our writings, our history (which in of itself preserved the bible) in order to have a bible as the final authority in which to deny our faith in the first place.

Well, of course we have to rely on the Church. I guess the problem here might be that Lutherans come to this from a different POV than other Protestants. We know where scripture came from. We know and accept the role of the Church.
We also have an understanding of SS as being the final norm for the Church to hold doctrine accountable. IOW, SS is a practice of the Church.

Its one of inconsistent authority, why is the bible the final authority for all things when it comes to the protestant interpretation of it, but when we question what should be scripture suddenly the fathers who have a bible resembling the 66 books are quoted as authority? Or do you think the case can be made that the bible in of itself without recourse to the church can establish itself in even the most basic 66 form protestants now accept? I don’t think you do.

It is the final norm for holding accountable teachings and doctrine. I think the rest I’ve answered.

But its interesting that in saying the church was guided by the holy spirit it is able to decide on the canon. What does that imply? Doesn’t that imply the church has an equal authority to establish scripture as scripture for itself and teaching? Or is this the only thing the church has been guided by God to be absolutely authoritative on? There are older and much more well attested doctrines than that of a biblical canon, ie apostolic succession.

I don’t know about equal or not equal. The Church has been given the teaching role, as its job is to preach the word, and administer the sacrament.

Jon

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

See that’s where you lose me, you say you are bound to those confessions but you ultimately have to admit they are not equal to scripture. So if one feels compelled by scripture to say the Lutherans are wrong ultimately they are going by the greater principle? Scripture over tradition? Its like saying as an RC they are bound to the RC confession, but Luther while an RC at one point found it contradicting scripture and thus effectively was expelled or left or whatever word is appropriate the Roman Catholic church. We are still left with the problem of scripture being valided, affirmed and preserved by the lesser authority, in the historical sense the RC, EO and OO churches. Why is there validity to be found in the acceptance of third john for instance? There’s no biblical reason to accept it after all, there are other writings which I might say offer more beneficial information as to worship, early church history and the like than that single letter that isn’t in the bible, like the Didache.

Lets use a practical problem, how does one determine whether or not the book of Maccabees is scripture? We can offer our arguments, on both sides but one thing on both of our sides will stand out, we are not arguing from the bible alone. The bible alone neither confirms or accepts it. In fact why should we assert any book to have authority in the first place? Where does this notion of the scripture having authority lay? Ultimately in the church, but then you run into a problem. I would make it clear that Im not talking about the bible being right, historical or anything like that, but having and inert authority that compels the Christain to accept it. What is the reason this gospel of John is read liturgically throughout the year? Or that the epistles of Paul carry the weight of authority that we should listen and die for what he says? Does that authority, that ability to recognise and accept it come from the bible in of itself? Or the church? What does that say about the authority of the church to determine so great a thing as the “final authority”? Why is then the church which you have to admit preserved and essentially gave you the bible, something which can be denied? Your Lutheranism by the same standard of my orthodoxy is nothing by your standards. It is something which is subject to scrutiny of the bible, a bible which cannot determine itself, which is dependant on non biblical arguments, that is not self sufficient. I hope I am making my point clear, if not I will need to refine what I’m saying.

My point is not that a church interprets scripture and makes its doctrines formally known over time, that’s common and accepted knowledge. My point is arguing on the basis of sola scriptura, that the bible should be our final authority, that we go to a lesser authority, in this case the church history of the fathers and the Church to say what is the bible. How do we arrive at a concept of the bible to begin with? It wasn’t an idea that the apostles exposited (rather theirs was establishing communities and teaching the gospel primarily by word and with reverent reading of old testament writings).

In so far as I the Roman Catholic claims as to the universal authority over the entire church by the Pope of Rome I would agree but that isn’t the subject here.

Well I’m not going to deny that the church has been given to teaching, sacramental ministry and other activities, but in order to teach on such a thing as the bible in the first place. The absolute authority of the gospels for instance one needs to know they have authority to begin with and one knows they have authority from the church and not from the bible alone. My point is to only show that there is authority equal to the bible that is not in the bible, ie the church and on other levels tradition. For instance would you agree that Christ’s exhaustive commentary would be more authoritative than anything in the bible itself? Despite it never being written down?

 

[JonNC]

=IgnatianPhilo;10951283]See that’s where you lose me, you say you are bound to those confessions but you ultimately have to admit they are not equal to scripture. So if one feels compelled by scripture to say the Lutherans are wrong ultimately they are going by the greater principle? Scripture over tradition?

I’m bound by the confessions because they rightly reflect the truth of scripture. As the saying goes, scripture is inerrant and cannot be wrong, the confessions are not inerrant but are not wrong. It isn’t a matter of a higher principle. If someone determines that they believe that something in the confessions is wrong, they are wrong, but that is their choice.

Its like saying as an RC they are bound to the RC confession, but Luther while an RC at one point found it contradicting scripture and thus effectively was expelled or left or whatever word is appropriate the Roman Catholic church. We are still left with the problem of scripture being valided, affirmed and preserved by the lesser authority,

I’m still curious about your idea of “greater authority” and “lesser authority”. It isn’t the way I think about it. The Church uses scripture as the final norm for holding teachers, doctrine, etc. accountable. Scripture is the final norm. Writings other than scripture can be witnesses to the truth of scripture.

in the historical sense the RC, EO and OO churches. Why is there validity to be found in the acceptance of third john for instance? **There’s no biblical reason to accept it after all, there are other writings which I might say offer more beneficial information as to worship, early church history and the like than that single letter that isn’t in the bible, like the Didache. **

The authority of the Church is found in Christ, and we know about by the apostolic teachings - scripture.
I’m not sure what you’re driving at in the bolded.

Lets use a practical problem, how does one determine whether or not the book of Maccabees is scripture? We can offer our arguments, on both sides but one thing on both of our sides will stand out, we are not arguing from the bible alone. The bible alone neither confirms or accepts it. In fact why should we assert any book to have authority in the first place? Where does this notion of the scripture having authority lay? Ultimately in the church, but then you run into a problem. I would make it clear that Im not talking about the bible being right, historical or anything like that, but having and inert authority that compels the Christain to accept it. What is the reason this gospel of John is read liturgically throughout the year? Or that the epistles of Paul carry the weight of authority that we should listen and die for what he says? Does that authority, that ability to recognise and accept it come from the bible in of itself? Or the church? What does that say about the authority of the church to determine so great a thing as the “final authority”? Why is then the church which you have to admit preserved and essentially gave you the bible, something which can be denied? Your Lutheranism by the same standard of my orthodoxy is nothing by your standards. It is something which is subject to scrutiny of the bible, a bible which cannot determine itself, which is dependant on non biblical arguments, that is not self sufficient. I hope I am making my point clear, if not I will need to refine what I’m saying.

Now you’ve lost me.

My point is not that a church interprets scripture and makes its doctrines formally known over time, that’s common and accepted knowledge. My point is arguing on the basis of sola scriptura, that the bible should be our final authority, that we go to a lesser authority, in this case the church history of the fathers and the Church to say what is the bible. How do we arrive at a concept of the bible to begin with? It wasn’t an idea that the apostles exposited (rather theirs was establishing communities and teaching the gospel primarily by word and with reverent reading of old testament writings).

See, now you are back to lesser/greater authority, and I’m not seeing the point. The Church has the role of teaching. Yes? The Church has the obligation to preach the word and administer the sacraments. Yes? God made available to His Church His word. This was written down, which we know as scripture. The Church also determines that which we consider canon. It is true that, like in other areas, there is dispute within the Church as to which books belong in the canon.

Well I’m not going to deny that the church has been given to teaching, sacramental ministry and other activities, but in order to teach on such a thing as the bible in the first place. The absolute authority of the gospels for instance one needs to know they have authority to begin with and one knows they have authority from the church and not from the bible alone. My point is to only show that there is authority equal to the bible that is not in the bible, ie the church and on other levels tradition. For instance would you agree that Christ’s exhaustive commentary would be more authoritative than anything in the bible itself? Despite it never being written down?

Of course I would.

Jon