Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[guanophore]

Thank you for clarifying. It makes sense. I do agree with PR that the problems in the Church, whether it is from a dysfunctional hierarchy or from divisions that occur are largely resulting from sin.

However, I am not sure that the example you gave really fits the bill of “ugly” and dysfunctional hierarchy. Indeed it was a rule/custom/law and in our day and age (as well as theirs possibly) it is appalling, I think it is more of a red herring. I am not sure the Reformation was spurred by such events as much as it was by corruption among the clergy.
"benhur:

Yes that is a problem, just as an institutional, top down heirarchy church has ugly problems also…Yet His truth marches on, here and there, by Peter and by Paul (my church your church)

I don’t think that an institution, or a hierarchy is necessarily a problem, unless it is corrupted.

I guess what you are saying is that one can follow the “rules” and still do corrupt things?

Guanophore–Well, then, I can’t concede regarding a point which I never made.

I’ve backed up to the first few posts on this topic. Prmerger said the hierarchy’s problems were from men who were “NOT FOLLOWING the rules” and who had dismissed the teachings of the Church.

I offered the Edgardo Mortara case as an example of men, including Pope Pius IX, who were in fact following the rules and taking the teaching of the Church with utmost seriousness and conviction.

I never said the rule being followed—that a baptised Christian child could not be raised by non-Christians—was a doctrine or dogma; I noted it was a rule of that time, but also founded upon a doctrine—that Trinitarian baptism is effective and indelible.

I readily said I don’t have a document with that rule. It still seems strange to me that I’m supposed to produce that document myself, because, as I said earlier, I’m no expert in this field but people —Catholic sources included, and especially—who are much more expert than me have no problem at all saying flatly that it was a rule, and those Catholic sources are easily available to anyone who takes a few minutes to look. The idea that it was a rule which was being followed is disputed by no-one, except on this thread. I can see being asked to provide evidence if I’d made a claim with any controversial standing, but there’s no controversy over the existence of a rule from the many Catholic sources I’ve read over a number of years.

Continued below with links…

 

[guanophore]

Just wanted to make the comment that guanophore is one of the best posters on this forum. He only has three faults

1. 
   *]He has fewer books than GKC (but don’t we all)
   *]He’s not Presbyterian (unlike the rest of us. QUIT LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT!!)
   *]He chose ‘guanophore’ as a user handle ('nuff said)

1. 
   I am working on catching up to GKC, but don’t know if I will ever make it. I am already cramped for space. I also suffer from the hindrance of electronic book collections. Since those don’t really “count” then I will always be functioning at a deficit.
   
   I still have a lot to learn about the Presbyterian perspective but I maintain that I am progressing in knowledge and understanding.
   
   Full Definition of GUANOPHORE
   : a chromatophore that is characterized by pale granules or iridescent crystals of guanine and occurs notably in the skin of fishes and reptiles
   
   It causes likght to shine in dark places, is a username that is always available, and was offered to me by my word processor which thinks it is the proper spelling for my given name. What more could one ask? It also shortens well to “guano” which is a very nutritious substance sought after by organic gardeners.

 

[Tomyris]

Thank you for clarifying. It makes sense. I do agree with PR that the problems in the Church, whether it is from a dysfunctional hierarchy or from divisions that occur are largely resulting from sin.

However, I am not sure that the example you gave really fits the bill of “ugly” and dysfunctional hierarchy. Indeed it was a rule/custom/law and in our day and age (as well as theirs possibly) it is appalling, I think it is more of a red herring. I am not sure the Reformation was spurred by such events as much as it was by corruption among the clergy.

I don’t think that an institution, or a hierarchy is necessarily a problem, unless it is corrupted.

I guess what you are saying is that one can follow the “rules” and still do corrupt things?

“He was only following orders” didn’t work later on.

Since the gentleman lived in the 1800s, he does not pertain to the Reformation. Alexander VI is of greater interest: could a pope be so corrupt that God rejects the papacy? I think of all the warnings to the pastors of Israel, and that the old leadership was not continued: God did away with the Levitical priesthood and the Sanhedrin. Why do you (not you personally) think God would spare you if you took the holy things and used them for your own gain, and forced people to choose between following God and following man, by insisting that whatever man said was authoritative, from God, however despotic? Where did Moses force anyone to choose between his own greed (because he was the divinely appointed leader) and God? Later we see judgement after judgement, yet a remnant always remained.

 

[PRmerger]

I think you can go with this:

But what I bolded is regarded as ‘burning in the bosom’:

The Church can only take us so far.

Soooooo…still confused.

The Church gave us the Bible, under God’s guidance?

Is that your position?

If not, then how is it that you know that the 27 books are correct?

 

[Tomyris]

Soooooo…still confused.

The Church gave us the Bible, under God’s guidance?

Is that your position?

If not, then how is it that you know that the 27 books are correct?

I would put it the other way around. God gave us the Bible (He used the Church). The difference is the instrumentality here. It is His revelation, not the property of the Church.

I know it implicitly. As I said, I don’t know if I can go past that. I’ve never wondered if some book or phrase or passage was not in it. I just believe it. Not because of the Church but because of God.

I think I mentioned a close friend of mine who really struggled with Paul. I could not relate to her at all.

 

[JRKH]

Here you go! Perhaps you may find this of interest.

Chapter XXXI

Not sure if the above was directed at PR or to my recent posts on the biblical call to settle disputes by telling it to the Church (Mt 18:15-18 - Acts 15).
In any case, Scripture itself tells us that the Church is the arbiter to which we we should turn - and that the Church has the authority to bind and loose “whatever”. These are Christ’s own words as set down in the Holy bible by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The Confessions that you quote above - seems to recognize this and to try to embrace it…and then cut’s it’s own throat in IV make saying that such councils can and have erred.

Why would they do that? Why would they at once embrace the Biblical model of the council in one sentence and then immediately undermine it in the next?

This one statement allows anyone anywhere at any time to claim any decision by any council to be in error and to make their claim on based upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their heart.

Of course this sort of “freedom” is at the very heart of the Protestant Reformation. Once the universal authority of “Church” is rejected no protestant church can then lay claim to legitimate authority…It is completely antithetical to true Christian unity and It is a self defeating principle.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

So you know what the inspired books are in the NT from the Catholic Church…and God protected the CC from making an error in discerning the canon?

But according to the Westminster confessions quoted earlier…councils have erred…so how does one know it the canon was correct or an error?



Peace
James

 

[Tomyris]

But according to the Westminster confessions quoted earlier…councils have erred…so how does one know it the canon was correct or an error?



Peace
James

Please see what I posted earlier today about why we believe.

You really believe councils should force someone to believe something against their will and conscience?

 

[JRKH]

I would put it the other way around. God gave us the Bible (He used the Church). The difference is the instrumentality here. It is His revelation, not the property of the Church.

Catholics have no argument with this.

I know it implicitly. As I said, I don’t know if I can go past that. I’ve never wondered if some book or phrase or passage was not in it. I just believe it. Not because of the Church but because of God.

Fair enough…But then we come back around to the matter of the varying numbers of books in the canon. The person who holds to Sola Scriptura has a problem in that the canon they commonly accept is:
a) both the smallest
b) by far the newest of the bible canons.
c) was not arrived at by any church council

So - Which of the bible canon’s is the correct one? Which is the complete word of God neither to be added to or taken away from? Which is to be the Sole rule of faith?

This is a very important point doctrinally because, for example, while a Catholic can support purgatory and prayers for the dead from Scripture, the Protestant (well some protestants) deny the reference because 2 Maccabees is not in their bible.
So who is right? Is 2 Maccabees the inspired word of God or not? the EO says yes. The RC says yes…the Reformers, a thousand years later, said no.

I believe that our protestant brothers and sisters have many things right…but some of the foundational principles, that they received from the reformation, just make no sense.

Peace
James

 

[benhur]

In searching for TRUTH we have to put our faith where we find it. The Reformation was more about being contrary to the TRUTH in the Catholic Church. Thus the Reformers left behind them a great deal of that TRUTH and settled only partial truth. Personally I hate to see those who put their faith in the Reformation settling for partial TRUTH when they could put it in the fullness of TRUTH found in the Catholic Church.

It is true that we put faith where we find truth. Part of the fruit of the reformation are all the souls who find truth in your called partial truth after being in a full truth church. Almost half my church are x catholic. Great seed is planted in CC but great fruit of that seed is also found in "other ’ churches, since this Reformation.

 

[benhur]

I don’t think that an institution, or a hierarchy is necessarily a problem, unless it is corrupted. I guess what you are saying is that one can follow the “rules” and still do corrupt things?

I am saying it is tricky to institutionalize a relationship. Yes it is a covenant, even a marriage, but beyond that it is difficult to “can” a good heart. So following rules can be ok and can also be a stumbling block, a “mechanical” love. The more rules you make, the more problematic. Think the simple decrees if Nicea, even the apostles creed then think Trent and how fat our catechisms have become. Heirarchy has gone thru similar evolving, not just due to “growth” of the Body.

 

[benhur]

Of course this sort of “freedom” is at the very heart of the Protestant Reformation. Once the universal authority of “Church” is rejected no protestant church can then lay claim to legitimate authority…It is completely antithetical to true Christian unity and It is a self defeating principle.

Peace
James

By "universal authority’’ of reformation times you mean CC and not Orthodox or other smaller groups churches. It is not universal then, unless you can come up with universal thought to these “others”…But that freedom you speak of has always been there, from gnostics to arians to others way before reformation. That those using such freedom have been wrong in the past does not mean that some wrongness can not stop at the doors of CC and rightness at other doors…Right is right. Truth is truth. Do we really covet authoritative legitimacy ? Is that what the Sanhedrin did to the healed blind man, questioning him, trying to pigeon hole the “authority” that healed him ? Perhaps that is antithethical to Christian unity. A bit like I am of Peter and you are of Paul.
Such unity would be nice but we must find it and indeed do have it in other ways, infallibly, and “undefeatable”.

 

[guanophore]

Alexander VI is of greater interest: could a pope be so corrupt that God rejects the papacy? I think of all the warnings to the pastors of Israel, and that the old leadership was not continued: God did away with the Levitical priesthood and the Sanhedrin. Why do you (not you personally) think God would spare you if you took the holy things and used them for your own gain, and forced people to choose between following God and following man, by insisting that whatever man said was authoritative, from God, however despotic? Where did Moses force anyone to choose between his own greed (because he was the divinely appointed leader) and God? Later we see judgement after judgement, yet a remnant always remained.

Just questions, and we do believe that the OT is a type and shadow of the NT.

However, there is only one priesthood in the NT, and that is of Christ. It is a different order than the levitical priesthood - it is eternal as Christ is of the order of Mechizedech. Those who are called to be priests of the New Covenenant are caught up into the One great High Priest. So, although they can personally fail, disgrace their office, and the Church, they cannot disqualify the eternal priesthood of Christ into which they were grafted at ordination.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I would put it the other way around. God gave us the Bible (He used the Church). The difference is the instrumentality here. It is His revelation, not the property of the Church.

God gave us the Church as well.

I love math, do you like math? Let’s make some equations from your statement

God + Church = Bible

God - Church = No Bible

God + Bible = Church

Therefore Church + Bible are from God.

That which is of God can only come from God.

Both the Church and the Bible are from God.

If you deny one, you deny the other.

If you separate one, you separate the other.

 

[Porknpie]

I would put it the other way around. God gave us the Bible (He used the Church). The difference is the instrumentality here. It is His revelation, not the property of the Church.

Tomi,

Let’s be specific the on the word “Church” above. Christ used and infallibly guided, Catholic Bishops, the descendants of the apostles, to discern what was scripture. They affirmed what was scripture beginning at the Council of Rome in 382. Led to all truth by Christ as he promised, they discerned 73 books to be his Written Revelation. In part, they did so to have a universal canon to be used at Mass throughout the world, for all of Christendom believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

They believed this (way) before the canon was compiled - and understood scripture in this light.

So I would rephrase your words above to:

I would put it the other way around. God gave us the Bible (He used -]the Church/-] his Catholic Bishops). The difference is the instrumentality here. It is His revelation, not the property of the Church.

PnP

(footnote: understand that The Church did not practice a bible alone theology. I could not do so as there was no canon of scripture prior to 382ad).

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would put it the other way around. God gave us the Bible (He used the Church).

God gave us both. And yes, God used the men who were members of what quickly became known as the Catholic Church (ca. AD 107), to write the NT. Later, He used men of that same Church to discern properly which books that were circulating the faithful were inspired and which were not. It was never His intention that we should focus on the one to the (near) exclusion of the other. This is the error that Protestants make.

The difference is the instrumentality here. It is His revelation, not the property of the Church.

Of course. Who says otherwise?

I know it implicitly. As I said, I don’t know if I can go past that. I’ve never wondered if some book or phrase or passage was not in it. I just believe it. Not because of the Church but because of God.

I’m skeptical.

Were you walking among the stacks of books at your local library one day when God said, “Tomyris, stop. Look to your left on the third shelf from the top. The third book from the left is my inspired word”?

No. (I’m not saying it *couldn’t *happen that way…I’m saying that isn’t the norm for most of us.)

Someone in the Church gave you the idea that the Bible is the Word of God.

I think I mentioned a close friend of mine who really struggled with Paul. I could not relate to her at all.

I think Paul often comes across as arrogant and much of what he wrote is so difficult to understand that we are still arguing about some of his theology to this very day. I can’t relate to *him *at all.

 

[PRmerger]

God gave us the Church as well.

I love math, do you like math? Let’s make some equations from your statement

God + Church = Bible

God - Church = No Bible

God + Bible = Church

Therefore Church + Bible are from God.

That which is of God can only come from God.

Both the Church and the Bible are from God.

If you deny one, you deny the other.

If you separate one, you separate the other.

[SIGN]A+[/SIGN]

 

[PRmerger]

Someone in the Church gave you the idea that the Bible is the Word of God.

Egg-zactly.

There is*** no other way ***for any Christian of today to know what is Scripture…except for they trust in the Christians of yesterday.

 

[Tomyris]

Egg-zactly.

There is*** no other way ***for any Christian of today to know what is Scripture…except for they trust in the Christians of yesterday.

You say that despite what I say, but you never seem to back it up.

 

[Tomyris]

God gave us both. And yes, God used the men who were members of what quickly became known as the Catholic Church (ca. AD 107), to write the NT. Later, He used men of that same Church to discern properly which books that were circulating the faithful were inspired and which were not. It was never His intention that we should focus on the one to the (near) exclusion of the other. This is the error that Protestants make.

Show me where I have made that error.

Of course. Who says otherwise?

The impression I get is that Catholics believe that God sort of cranked up the church to run and walked off the set, and that they believe the Bible is a creation of the Church. Sola Ecclesia- Believing in the Church alone, and that God and the Bible must always be mediated through it as gatekeeper and interpreter.

I’m skeptical.

Nice to meet you.

Were you walking among the stacks of books at your local library one day when God said, “Tomyris, stop. Look to your left on the third shelf from the top. The third book from the left is my inspired word”?

No. (I’m not saying it *couldn’t *happen that way…I’m saying that isn’t the norm for most of us.)

Accept the weirdness.

Someone in the Church gave you the idea that the Bible is the Word of God.

I can’t answer that. Many of my earliest memories were of being in church (Episcopal) but I don’t remember what was being said. I have some very strong memories of the presence of God.

There are Muslims today who have dreams of Jesus and secretly convert, without any church involvement. Occasionally we learn their stories.

I think Paul often comes across as arrogant and much of what he wrote is so difficult to understand that we are still arguing about some of his theology to this very day. I can’t relate to *him *at all.

I like Paul. Very apostolic.