Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[PRmerger]

I see that as false choices, as I described above. I wonder if you read my previous posts, and if you did, if it registered. If you had you wouldn’t have thought what you just posted would be something I would see as a dichotomy.

I did read all of your previous posts.

And it is true that I didn’t register–in that it seems to have some cognitive dissonance for me.

Perhaps if you could re-explicate how it is that you know that the Epistle to the Hebrews is inspired and that the other 400 ancient Christian texts are not inspired?

I truly am not understanding what you are explaining.

 

[Tomyris]

I did read all of your previous posts.

And it is true that I didn’t register–in that it seems to have some cognitive dissonance for me.

Perhaps if you could re-explicate how it is that you know that the Epistle to the Hebrews is inspired and that the other 400 ancient Christian texts are not inspired?

I truly am not understanding what you are explaining.

Consider John 4:42 “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the World.”

My guess is that although you accept all Church teaching, there have been some you struggled with, and said to yourself, 'How can this be true?" Then you studied it, and then you said, ‘I see now why the Church teaches this.’ Then you know it for yourself, not just second-hand.

Allow me a question. Which is true?

PRM believes the Catholic Church is the one true Church because the Catholic Church says it is the one true Church.

PRM believes the Catholic Church is the one true Church because God told her it was (either directly or that sums up a long, very complex story of many parts and nuances that winds up being a real conviction that it is the one true Church, and that God is the one who directed her search, and directed her to that conclusion, however long and tortuous that story was).

 

[PRmerger]

Consider John 4:42 “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the World.”

My guess is that although you accept all Church teaching, there have been some you struggled with, and said to yourself, 'How can this be true?" Then you studied it, and then you said, ‘I see now why the Church teaches this.’ Then you know it for yourself, not just second-hand.

Allow me a question. Which is true?

PRM believes the Catholic Church is the one true Church because the Catholic Church says it is the one true Church.

PRM believes the Catholic Church is the one true Church because God told her it was (either directly or that sums up a long, very complex story of many parts and nuances that winds up being a real conviction that it is the one true Church, and that God is the one who directed her search, and directed her to that conclusion, however long and tortuous that story was).

We can address all of the above in future posts, but this is actually digressing from my original question.

How is it that you know that the Epistle to the Hebrews is inspired, Tomy?

My understanding of what you’ve explained is that you read it, prayed about it, and God told you it was inspired.

Is that a correct explication of your process of knowing how each of the 27 books of the NT are indeed inspired?

 

[Tomyris]

Thank you for sharing that portion of the Westminster confessions. Very helpful.

If I may observe - and then ask…
The sections you cited above speak of the “Holy Spirit” being of supreme importance in this matter. Something that every Catholic would agree with. The confessions, number X says that it is the Holy Spirit, speaking through scripture that is the supreme judge.
A fair enough and I might add very sound position to take. I would even say that it is not at all “un-Catholic”.
That said - I ask the following in all sincerity and hope you will answer this question.
What do you do when two sincere Christians come to opposing viewpoints on a matter considered by at least one of them to be important to one’s salvation, and both are certain that they are guided by the Holy Spirit?
Is there Scriptural guidance on how to handle this?

peace
James

Yes. It’s called humility. And then there is charity in all things.

In WCF sections I did not post there is discussion (I think) on how this is handled - there is a role for the Church. We don’t pretend there is no Church.

In my experience, when I pull something on my pastor, he is very patient, and only later repairs the wallpaper (from me driving him up the wall). Or my husband. Or anyone else.
People try to hide but I hunt them down anyway. If two people got into a real snit like that and went to the pastor about it he would handle it.

One: “Gotta have flowered wallpaper in the ladies’ room. It’s God’s will.”
Two: “Flowered wallpaper is of the devil. Paint is Scriptural. There’s no sissy flowered wallpaper mentioned in SCRIPTURE!”

I think the first thing he would address is their attitude, then how they heard what they heard, and how they could resolve it. If they could not resolve it, there are problems way beyond the immediate issue.

But generally individual Christians don’t get into doctrinal battles. We leave that for the professionals. Seminary types. Denominational officials.

I recall a gentleman who was in our church years ago who vehemently disagreed with a bunch of stuff,and did so publicly. The church was extremely patient with him. I was there somehow when he buttonholed the pastor and informed the pastor he was leaving to go to church X, where he was more in line with what they were doing (AFAIK absolutely true). The pastor’s response? A very sincere ‘sorry to see you go’. I could see a priest acting the exact same way: ‘Parish X is more oriented towards my needs than this stable’ -‘sorry to see you go.’

 

[PRmerger]

People try to hide but I hunt them down anyway.

Love this! That made me COL.*

*Chuckle Out Loud.

 

[Contarini]

To summarize and repeat the problems I have with your position, Tomyris:

1. You are rather coy about what it means for God to “tell” you something. You say that you aren’t talking about feelings or something along the lines of the Mormon “burning in the bosom.” Fine. But then what are you talking about? You also talk about just “having faith,” which sounds like a random, arbitrary choice. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting you, but again, you haven’t given me an alternative, except insofar as
2. You speak of a long, complicated process of discernment. I’m totally with you on that. The problem I’m having with it is that (apart from the fact that you sometimes do still speak of “directly hearing from God” as if this were something different) in that case “hearing from God” is simply another name for the end of the process of discernment. That is to say, for God to tell you that something is true is another way of saying that you have discerned that it is true. Therefore in this case to say “God told me” gives no additional reason beyond “I have discerned that this is true.” If that’s what you are saying, then I agree with your understanding of how God communicates, but I don’t think you’ve answered the challenge, except through a tautology.

In other words, if you aren’t saying that you feel that it’s true or that you just decide to believe it because that’s what you decide, you must have reasons for believing a thing to be true. God speaking to you isn’t an additional reason, it’s another name for the entire process of discernment.

And the question we’re asking you is: what is left of that process of discernment, when it comes to the Canon, if you take out trust in the Church? I can’t see that much is left. You haven’t helped us out with this at all.

You create a dichotomy between God speaking and the Church speaking. But obviously if God speaking is something discerned in a long, roundabout, complex way (which is certainly what I believe), then there’s no reason why the Church speaking shouldn’t be an important part of that process. And in this particular case it seems that it would have to be a very decisive factor, because historically the Church’s decision was the reason the NT canon took the precise shape it did. To accept that shape is to trust the Church, necessarily.

Edwin

 

[Tomyris]

We can address all of the above in future posts, but this is actually digressing from my original question.

How is it that you know that the Epistle to the Hebrews is inspired, Tomy?

My understanding of what you’ve explained is that you read it, prayed about it, and God told you it was inspired.

Is that a correct explication of your process of knowing how each of the 27 books of the NT are indeed inspired?

No. It’s more like ‘The Bible is Mine.’
‘Oh.’

The contents of the Bible include Hebrews. That happened, I think, before I knew Hebrews was in there (this was over thirty years ago, and my memory isn’t the best, and you may find it odd that I don’t think about this a lot).

And really, I think it was His initiative more than mine on the whole thing. Not so much me praying about it as Him speaking. And then: ‘Did I hear right?’ And everything confirming that. It was not cranking through the books: ‘OK, we got 1 Corinthians down! How about 2nd?’

If it helps at all a friend of mine at the time really struggled with Paul because of what she saw as his lousy attitude towards women. She DID pray about his books (as a group) but I don’t know if she has what I have. Hmmm.

I just sort of assumed what I am describing is normative. I am a little puzzled that you don’t have an innate sense of this. It’s not something I go around asking people, so it is entirely possible if I ask 10 of my closest friends why they believe the Bible is true they will tell me it is because the Church says it is. Dang.

 

[Contarini]

No. It’s more like ‘The Bible is Mine.’
‘Oh.’

The contents of the Bible include Hebrews. That happened, I think, before I knew Hebrews was in there (this was over thirty years ago, and my memory isn’t the best, and you may find it odd that I don’t think about this a lot).

And really, I think it was His initiative more than mine on the whole thing. Not so much me praying about it as Him speaking. And then: ‘Did I hear right?’ And everything confirming that. It was not cranking through the books: ‘OK, we got 1 Corinthians down! How about 2nd?’

If it helps at all a friend of mine at the time really struggled with Paul because of what she saw as his lousy attitude towards women. She DID pray about his books (as a group) but I don’t know if she has what I have. Hmmm.

I just sort of assumed what I am describing is normative. I am a little puzzled that you don’t have an innate sense of this. It’s not something I go around asking people, so it is entirely possible if I ask 10 of my closest friends why they believe the Bible is true they will tell me it is because the Church says it is. Dang.

I think you’re not getting the point we’re trying to make. You keep insisting that we need to take the Bible as a whole. And rightly so. But it comes to you as a whole because of the Church. The Protestant Church/Jewish community in the case of the OT, admittedly. But you were handed a whole Bible not by God directly but by Christians, because of tradition.

Once I started thinking about this fact, it seemed clear to me that I needed to take the whole concept of Church authority and tradition more seriously. And that since in fact the Protestants received the Bible from the very medieval Catholic Church which they criticized so harshly in other ways, that selection needed to be questioned.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

Once I started thinking about this fact, it seemed clear to me that I needed to take the whole concept of Church authority and tradition more seriously. And that since in fact the Protestants received the Bible from the very medieval Catholic Church which they criticized so harshly in other ways, that selection needed to be questioned.

Edwin

Yep.

As I’ve shared before–this very trenchant commentary from Mark Shea:

"The original 16th-century revolutionaries had the mysterious conviction that you could attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar --** yet inexplicably seize their Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle**."http://www.crisismagazine.com/2009/on-finding-christ-in-the-church

 

[Novocastrian]

As I’ve shared before–this very trenchant commentary from Mark Shea:

That ‘trenchant commentary’ is, at best, a caricature of the vast majority of sixteenth century Reformers. It’s the equivalent of equating the sometimes poorly catechised but exuberant Marian devotion of mediaeval peasants as nothing but paganism and idolatry.

 

[Tomyris]

To summarize and repeat the problems I have with your position, Tomyris:

1. You are rather coy about what it means for God to “tell” you something. You say that you aren’t talking about feelings or something along the lines of the Mormon “burning in the bosom.” Fine. But then what are you talking about? You also talk about just “having faith,” which sounds like a random, arbitrary choice. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting you, but again, you haven’t given me an alternative, except insofar as
2. You speak of a long, complicated process of discernment. I’m totally with you on that. The problem I’m having with it is that (apart from the fact that you sometimes do still speak of “directly hearing from God” as if this were something different) in that case “hearing from God” is simply another name for the end of the process of discernment. That is to say, for God to tell you that something is true is another way of saying that you have discerned that it is true. Therefore in this case to say “God told me” gives no additional reason beyond “I have discerned that this is true.” If that’s what you are saying, then I agree with your understanding of how God communicates, but I don’t think you’ve answered the challenge, except through a tautology.

In other words, if you aren’t saying that you feel that it’s true or that you just decide to believe it because that’s what you decide, you must have reasons for believing a thing to be true. God speaking to you isn’t an additional reason, it’s another name for the entire process of discernment.

And the question we’re asking you is: what is left of that process of discernment, when it comes to the Canon, if you take out trust in the Church? I can’t see that much is left. You haven’t helped us out with this at all.

You create a dichotomy between God speaking and the Church speaking. But obviously if God speaking is something discerned in a long, roundabout, complex way (which is certainly what I believe), then there’s no reason why the Church speaking shouldn’t be an important part of that process. And in this particular case it seems that it would have to be a very decisive factor, because historically the Church’s decision was the reason the NT canon took the precise shape it did. To accept that shape is to trust the Church, necessarily.

Edwin

That’s good. I can see why you are having problems. I’m not guaranteeing an explanation, because I may not be there yet. Here is a ‘snapshot’:

Observation is inherently chaotic. It is only when we have some observations that we can start to have a pattern. Observation is illogical, random, the results may differ and be unrepeatable.

We try to draw order out of this chaos. If God speaks directly, we observe it and it is unpatterned and be unrepeated.

You speak of a long drawn-out process, as if that is the only way, or rather, the safe way, to come to a conclusion. You can have a process peppered with all sorts of observations, whether disturbing (in the sense of being seminal or life-chaning) books, conversations, events, or bringing continuity, integrating your previous observation, thoughts and so forth into an emerging pattern. I think there is the direct and the indirect, and much in-between.

‘Stuck with’ is the wrong term, but I am sort of stuck with believing the Bible is God’s Word, without a particular rational basis in itself. It would be nice if I had one. Maybe for Christmas.

Q: Why do you believe the Bible is true?
A: God told me.
Q: Riiiight…‘walks away slowly’

Today’s question, class, is how does the Church factor in? When confronted with God-hearing lunatics, the Church is there to agree when they have heard from God and to help them when they are simply looney.

Is there a role for the Church? Absolutely. Does the Church guide, nurture, train, protect and comfort us? That’s the role. Do I have problems with the idea that it came up with a canon? No. Should observations be tested? Yes. Who should test them? The Church seems most logical to test stuff. Can God speak to the Church? Yes. Can God speak to me through the Church? Yes. Is it fact and not just possibility? Yes.

Ok, I am out of breath.

 

[JRKH]

Yes. It’s called humility. And then there is charity in all things.

In WCF sections I did not post there is discussion (I think) on how this is handled - there is a role for the Church. We don’t pretend there is no Church.

In my experience, when I pull something on my pastor, he is very patient, and only later repairs the wallpaper (from me driving him up the wall). Or my husband. Or anyone else.
People try to hide but I hunt them down anyway. If two people got into a real snit like that and went to the pastor about it he would handle it.

One: “Gotta have flowered wallpaper in the ladies’ room. It’s God’s will.”
Two: “Flowered wallpaper is of the devil. Paint is Scriptural. There’s no sissy flowered wallpaper mentioned in SCRIPTURE!”

I think the first thing he would address is their attitude, then how they heard what they heard, and how they could resolve it. If they could not resolve it, there are problems way beyond the immediate issue.

But generally individual Christians don’t get into doctrinal battles. We leave that for the professionals. Seminary types. Denominational officials.

Thanks for replying…
Couple of things.
I find it interesting that you reference the Confessions, your Pastor and “Seminary Types” in your answer. I wonder how (in your mind) this is any different than what the Catholic Church does? For we too reference “Confessions” (Church documents), Pastors (Clergy), and “Seminary types” (Theologians). We sound very very similar here…

That said - I would like to take your answer above about individuals disagreeing and extend it to communities. Now it is one ekklesia who declares that flowered wallpaper is God’s Will and another ekklesia down the street declares that flowered wallpaper is of the devil and anyone using it is hell bound. Remember, each group is sincere, believes that they are guided by the Holy Spirit and can quote Scripture to support their position.

In the church model that has evolved since the reformation - What mechanism covers this?

I look forward to your reply on this.

Peace
James

 

[benhur]

God uses men. God uses the Church. But in the end it is God at work,

“This is the work of God, that you believe on whom he has sent” and “the Father in heaven has revealed this to you” when Peter and the apostles and all folk were sorting out whom Jesus really is thru all the opinions of men and “church”, including rabbis, teachers, Pharisees, Sanhedrin, parents, Scripture, even hanging out with Jesus etc… (John 6:28, Matt16:17 paraphrase). Or try Augustine speaking of Moses or possibly Ambrose his contemporary elder bishop, “Do you who granted to him, your servant, to speak these true words, grant that I may understand them” or “that we may know this, He teaches us , because He the beginning and He speaks to us”, (Confessions: Book 11, ch 3 and ch8)

 

[Porknpie]

And really, I think it was His initiative more than mine on the whole thing. Not so much me praying about it as Him speaking. And then: ‘Did I hear right?’ And everything confirming that…

Tomyis, your discernment process sounds very, … Mormon-like. For they say that same thing. They just add that in doing so, they feel a burning in the bosom.

And unless you went through this process with each of the 300+ texts not included in the NT canon, then you really don’t know if one is missing that is theopneustos.

Until you do so, you tacitly (thank you PRM) put your trust in the Catholic Church, that the Holy Spirit led the Bishops of the Catholic Church to discern the canon of scripture. And they discerned and affirmed that there were 73 books, repeatedly over time. Even the Original King James bible had 73 books … until a printing press removed them to save money.

PnP

 

[Novocastrian]

TEven the Original King James bible had 73 books … until a printing press removed them to save money.

Ooh, look at the Apostles and how traditionally they’re depicted. Peter with his keys, James as a pilgrim, a young John with chalice, Bartholomew with the knife that flayed him. The four evangelists with their symbols. And the Lamb of God, triumphant at the top, and slain at the bottom. Wonderful!

 

[Denise1957]

That ‘trenchant commentary’ is, at best, a caricature of the vast majority of sixteenth century Reformers. It’s the equivalent of equating the sometimes poorly catechised but exuberant Marian devotion of mediaeval peasants as nothing but paganism and idolatry.

I think that Mark Shea is trying to prove a point. If you want to put in in a more palatable way, it could be summed up as thus:

Protestant revolutionaries of old said to the Catholic Church:…“We want your Bible, but we don’t want you. We’re going to take your book and decide for ourselves what it really means.”

Maybe I’m way off base here, but the views of some Protestants (certainly not all) reminds me of the attitude of rebellious teenagers, who cannot accept that their elders (the Catholic church) just might have a bit more wisdom and truth and experience behind them in comparison to a very young person (Protestants).

Not that young people can’t discern truth to, but a rebellious attitude can get in the way of seeing things properly. And they are convinced that the elders in their lives can’t possibly know what they’re talking about. I’m not trying to offend the Protestants here, just trying to further explore Mark Shea’s reasoning. Mark Shea does get a bit snarky at times. He can’t really help it. But he does have a point, however crudely he may put it.

 

[Novocastrian]

I think that Mark Shea is trying to prove a point. If you want to put in in a more palatable way, it could be summed up as thus:

Protestant revolutionaries of old said to the Catholic Church:…“We want your Bible, but we don’t want you. We’re going to take your book and decide for ourselves what it really means.”

Maybe I’m way off base here, but the views of some Protestants (certainly not all) reminds me of the attitude of rebellious teenagers, who cannot accept that their elders (the Catholic church) just might have a bit more wisdom and truth and experience behind them in comparison to a very young person (Protestants).

Not that young people can’t discern truth to, but a rebellious attitude can get in the way of seeing things properly. And they are convinced that the elders in their lives can’t possibly know what they’re talking about. I’m not trying to offend the Protestants here, just trying to further explore Mark Shea’s reasoning. Mark Shea does get a bit snarky at times. He can’t really help it. But he does have a point, however crudely he may put it.

Everything you’ve just said presupposes the Roman Catholic understanding of what happened in the sixteenth century, namely that new churches were set up rather than old ones reformed. For obvious reasons that isn’t going to convince any Protestants.

 

[JRKH]

Everything you’ve just said presupposes the Roman Catholic understanding of what happened in the sixteenth century, namely that new churches were set up rather than old ones reformed. For obvious reasons that isn’t going to convince any Protestants.

Just a thought…
Reform needs to happen within a group to correct or improve the group - - yes?
If the "reform causes a complete separation - is it not then a rebellion?

Of course this will depend on one’s perspective…
I’m reminded of a line from the movie 1776 where Benjamin Franklin says of revolution…
“A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as “our rebellion.” It is only in the third person - “their rebellion” - that it becomes illegal.”
Our perspectives might color our view of the protestant reformation in much the same way.

P.S. - a lot of good lines in that movie…

Peace
James

 

[joe371]

Just a thought…
Reform needs to happen within a group to correct or improve the group - - yes?
If the "reform causes a complete separation - is it not then a rebellion?

Of course this will depend on one’s perspective…
I’m reminded of a line from the movie 1776 where Benjamin Franklin says of revolution…“A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as “our rebellion.” It is only in the third person - “their rebellion” - that it becomes illegal.” Our perspectives might color our view of the protestant reformation in much the same way.

P.S. - a lot of good lines in that movie…

Peace
James

Such as the 16th century Catholic Reformation (counter-force to Protestantism)
which corrected many things, successfully…

 

[joe371]

That’s good. I can see why you are having problems. I’m not guaranteeing an explanation, because I may not be there yet. Here is a ‘snapshot’:

Observation is inherently chaotic. It is only when we have some observations that we can start to have a pattern. Observation is illogical, random, the results may differ and be unrepeatable.

We try to draw order out of this chaos. If God speaks directly, we observe it and it is unpatterned and be unrepeated.

You speak of a long drawn-out process, as if that is the only way, or rather, the safe way, to come to a conclusion. You can have a process peppered with all sorts of observations, whether disturbing (in the sense of being seminal or life-chaning) books, conversations, events, or bringing continuity, integrating your previous observation, thoughts and so forth into an emerging pattern. I think there is the direct and the indirect, and much in-between.

‘Stuck with’ is the wrong term, but I am sort of stuck with believing the Bible is God’s Word, without a particular rational basis in itself. It would be nice if I had one. Maybe for Christmas.

Today’s question, class, is how does the Church factor in? When confronted with God-hearing lunatics, the Church is there to agree when they have heard from God and to help them when they are simply looney.

Is there a role for the Church? Absolutely. Does the Church guide, nurture, train, protect and comfort us? That’s the role. Do I have problems with the idea that it came up with a canon? No. Should observations be tested? Yes. Who should test them? The Church seems most logical to test stuff. Can God speak to the Church? Yes. Can God speak to me through the Church? Yes. Is it fact and not just possibility? Yes.

Ok, I am out of breath.

LOL…Could it be as simple as this: God established His church (He said - I will build my church…") comprised of all fallible sinners, beginning with the fallible apostles, and as God did in the 1st century, God continues to ineffably guide His Church into all truth until the end of time?