Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[adf417]

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

You don’t read much PRmerger do you?

Peace!!!

 

[Contarini]

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

I don’t think it’s historically deniable that the 27-book canon was shaped by the early “Catholic Church” (from which all Christians today are descended, so the term in itself doesn’t settle the case in favor of the contemporary “Roman Catholic Church”). The canon is quite literally our gift from the Christians of yesterday. Are you seriously denying this?

If you don’t deny this, then you need to show that there are other criteria which make this one unnecessary. But you haven’t done this. You have shown a certain annoyance at even being asked. You first said that God had directly spoken to you on the matter, and when pressed you said that this was actually a complex process of discernment out of which you have heard God’s voice. But you have been unwilling to be more specific.

So with all due respect, I think you are the one who has failed to back up your claims. On the one hand, we have a historically indisputable criterion: acceptance by the “Christians of yesterday.” We’re still waiting to see what we have on the other hand except your claim that God has directly spoken to you.

Edwin

 

[JonNC]

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

James,
I am going to step out on a rather interesting limb, and answer regarding the councils: if they happened prior to the schism, and both Rome and Orthodoxy agree on them,then one can have a level of certainty they are correct.

With patience I await the limb to be cut off, perhaps even by my Lutheran siblings.

Jon

 

[Tomyris]

James,
I am going to step out on a rather interesting limb, and answer regarding the councils: if they happened prior to the schism, and both Rome and Orthodoxy agree on them,then one can have a level of certainty they are correct.

With patience I await the limb to be cut off, perhaps even by my Lutheran siblings.

Jon

How do the Oriental Orthodox in schism fit into this?

 

[Tomyris]

I don’t think it’s historically deniable that the 27-book canon was shaped by the early “Catholic Church” (from which all Christians today are descended, so the term in itself doesn’t settle the case in favor of the contemporary “Roman Catholic Church”). The canon is quite literally our gift from the Christians of yesterday. Are you seriously denying this?

Not at all. There is more evidence for the NT’s reliability and veracity than for any other ancient historical event.
It took a long time to settle the canon (“PR prepares to pounce”) and we have various ancient lists, from Melito to Athanasius to the Muratonian canon to look at, as well as all the long discussion on the place of what Protestants refer to as Apocrypha.
We have a lot of people to be grateful to for having the books we have today - the original authors and centuries of faithful copyists.
We can recognize God’s hand at work in this.

We can appreciate the complexities of the historical discussions and decisions that went into the canon, but in the end, why do we believe? Do we put our trust in the Church first or God second, which is idolatry (“I believe God because of the Church”) or believe God because of Who He Is, and all else is a distant second. Understanding history and loving the Church can be helpful but they cannot be a crutch.

If you don’t deny this, then you need to show that there are other criteria which make this one unnecessary. But you haven’t done this. You have shown a certain annoyance at even being asked.

Sorry I came off that way.

You first said that God had directly spoken to you on the matter, and when pressed you said that this was actually a complex process of discernment out of which you have heard God’s voice. But you have been unwilling to be more specific.

So with all due respect, I think you are the one who has failed to back up your claims. On the one hand, we have a historically indisputable criterion: acceptance by the “Christians of yesterday.” We’re still waiting to see what we have on the other hand except your claim that God has directly spoken to you.

Edwin

I think it is curious that Catholics are objecting to someone saying God spoke something when it is entirely in line with Catholic thought and belief: that the Bible is inspired. Picture me asking a bishop for confirmation about a “private revelation” that God told me that the Bible is inspired. I think I would get it.

There is historically indisputable evidence that God gave us the Bible (through the Church). Some seem to be determined to leave God out of the picture and maintain that we cannot know God, we can only know the Church, and the Bible is entirely the creature of the Church. If that is not what is being said then correct me.

There is a both-and here: God speaks, and it is not amazing that He speaks in a way that is consistent with reality. History and real faith and reason are not in opposition.

How does God speak to you? Only through reason? How do you know He has spoken? What is your position on charismata today?

 

[JRKH]

James,
I am going to step out on a rather interesting limb, and answer regarding the councils: if they happened prior to the schism, and both Rome and Orthodoxy agree on them,then one can have a level of certainty they are correct.

With patience I await the limb to be cut off, perhaps even by my Lutheran siblings.

Jon

Yes this could be a whole other avenue of discussion…

It is not my intent to cut off your limb but…my reply to this would be to ask…

1. Which post reformation, ecumenical, protestant council established this standard?
2. And also - what constitutes a “level of certainty”? What level is that and how is it defined?
3. Of ALL of the specific things determined at the various councils do certain things have a higher or lower level of certainty?
4. Could it be that the Holy Spirit protected a council on Tuesday but not on Thursday?

Sorry - got a little carried away…
But I hope you see my point…“a level of certainty” is not very precise. Likewise saying that councils are a good thing to guide the Church but then declaring that past councils can and have erred…is just setting up a system for failure.

Besides which it is not how Scripture expresses it.

Peace
James

Peace
James

 

[Denise1957]

How does God speak to you? Only through reason? How do you know He has spoken? What is your position on charismata today?

So, are you a charismatic?

 

[Tomyris]

Yes this could be a whole other avenue of discussion…

It is not my intent to cut off your limb but…my reply to this would be to ask…

1. Which post reformation, ecumenical, protestant council established this standard?
2. And also - what constitutes a “level of certainty”? What level is that and how is it defined?
3. Of ALL of the specific things determined at the various councils do certain things have a higher or lower level of certainty?
4. Could it be that the Holy Spirit protected a council on Tuesday but not on Thursday?

Sorry - got a little carried away…
But I hope you see my point…“a level of certainty” is not very precise. Likewise saying that councils are a good thing to guide the Church but then declaring that past councils can and have erred…is just setting up a system for failure.

Besides which it is not how Scripture expresses it.

Peace
James

Peace
James

Someone can be right but the decision not be infallible. I can respect and consider someone’s opinion on something, even yield to it as reasonable and proper, without needing anything like calling it “infallible”.

Are you prepared to endorse all the Arian councils?

 

[Tomyris]

So, are you a charismatic?

The word is one that has lost much in the way of meaning. Would you mind being more specific?

It’s clear I believe God speaks to individuals today. But don’t we all believe that?

 

[JRKH]

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.

AMEN…Could not agree more…

My very simplistic take on this is that what occurs is what I like to call the “yea but what if…” syndrome.
Jesus said forgive…Peter says “how many times”?
The Rich young man says what must I do…Jesus says to obey the commandments…the RYM replies “what else?”…and so it goes.

Likewise the Church issues some teaching, and someone says “yea but what if…” and the Church tries to explain…and then someone else asks “Yea but what if…”

This goes on for 2000 years and you wind up with a VERY fat book of teachings…

The “Yea but what if…” syndrome…

Peace
James

 

[Denise1957]

The word is one that has lost much in the way of meaning. Would you mind being more specific?

It’s clear I believe God speaks to individuals today. But don’t we all believe that?

Charismatic, as in speaking in tongues and that that stuff. The extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost.

 

[SteveVH]

Someone can be right but the decision not be infallible.

Yep. Happens all the time.

I can respect and consider someone’s opinion on something, even yield to it as reasonable and proper, without needing anything like calling it “infallible”.

If the Church is not infallible, according to its own definition, then we can have no certainty that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. We can take a guess, but it would be only a guess. How do we know that the 27 books of the New Testament are all the books that should have been included? Were some left out? Were some included that should not have been?

How certain are you that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and on what do you base your certainty, if not an infallible voice protected and guided by the Holy Spirit?

Are you prepared to endorse all the Arian councils?

Of course not. I believe the Church to be infallible. Taking your position, however, you should not be so certain. Do the Arian councils sound reasonable? If they do you might want to consider believing them as you really have no way of knowing for certain, no more than you have of knowing that the Bible is the inerrant word of God without an infallible authority telling you it is.

Steve

 

[JRKH]

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”…

Actually at this point I was not speaking of any particular Church. I was merely referencing Scripture which is very clear on the subject of “Tell it to The Church”…which has the authority to “Bind and loose” “whatever” (Mt 18:15-18).

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.

Quite so…but one must be careful in how one understands and exercises this.
Note Mt 23:1-3 Where Jesus tells the Disciples to be obedient to the Pharisees. He did not command this because the Pharisees were pillars of virtue but rather because, as Jesus Himself stated, they sit on Moses seat.
In other words…Jesus separated the actions of individuals from the authority of their teaching.
So - just because there can (and is) sin within the Church - does not excuse one from being obedient the Church as one is obedient to Christ.

Again - note here I am neither promoting or defending the Catholic Church in particular…I am looking at Scripture and what Scripture is telling me.

Do we really covet authoritative legitimacy?

Coveting authority is a bad hing. One ought not do that for when one covets, it is power, not authority that the seek.
Rather - it is necessary to recognize the need for structure and authority AND to recognize the responsibility (not the power) that goes along with that authority.
Responsibility is the key word here in understanding the biblical view on authority.

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.

In some ways I agree with you here. Such things can get out of hand and make us blind to God’s work.
On the other hand…investigations along this line can be very useful in ferreting out charlatans and wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Such unity would be nice but we must find it

I believe that such unity is MORE than just nice…It is something to be devoutly desired by every Christian who seeks to be one as Jesus and the Father are one.

and indeed do have it in other ways, infallibly, and “undefeatable”.

Well - perhaps…but not on the basis of the “church model” that evolved from the Protestant reformation. That is entirely un-biblical.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

The word is one that has lost much in the way of meaning. Would you mind being more specific?

It’s clear I believe God speaks to individuals today. But don’t we all believe that?

I do and have at least two clear experiences to back it up.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Of course none of this really addresses what was in my post that this was a reply to…But oh well…

Someone can be right but the decision not be infallible.

hhmmmmm…now you got me thinking…
Infallible…means it’s not possible that the decision is wrong…
Right…not wrong…
So - if a person make a right decision…then isn’t that decision, by definition “infallible”?

Of course it doesn’t mean that the person is infallible…only that particular decision…

I think we might be starting down yet another trail here…

I can respect and consider someone’s opinion on something, even yield to it as reasonable and proper, without needing anything like calling it “infallible”.

Sure you can…and many do…But one can then make the argument that such a one is setting themselves up as the “infallible” authoritative arbiter of what is right, reasonable and proper.
One can make the argument that this is what the Reformers did - and what many others have done since then.

Are you prepared to endorse all the Arian councils?

Nope - they are not sanctioned by Christ’s Holy Church.

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

=JRKH;12204554]Yes this could be a whole other avenue of discussion…

Could be, and I don’t want to swerve off topic, but a couple of thoughts:

It is not my intent to cut off your limb but…my reply to this would be to ask…

Oh, sure you don’t.

1. Which post reformation, ecumenical, protestant council established this standard?

Well, I meant this as a personal comment. Perhaps not so far out on a limb, since generally Lutherans do accept the 7 councils that both east and west accept. Further, Catholics and Orthodox rarely have councils together, why would one expect Lutherans and other protestant communions do so.

1. And also - what constitutes a “level of certainty”? What level is that and how is it defined?
2. Of ALL of the specific things determined at the various councils do certain things have a higher or lower level of certainty?

Ok, authoritative. It is the way we speak of the creeds, so it seems appropriate.

1. Could it be that the Holy Spirit protected a council on Tuesday but not on Thursday?

How about Wednesday. We’re busy on Tuesday and Thursday.

Sorry - got a little carried away…
But I hope you see my point…“a level of certainty” is not very precise. Likewise saying that councils are a good thing to guide the Church but then declaring that past councils can and have erred…is just setting up a system for failure.

Does authoritative work?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

How do the Oriental Orthodox in schism fit into this?

They are welcome to accept Chalcedon if they choose.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Of course none of this really addresses what was in my post that this was a reply to…But oh well…

hhmmmmm…now you got me thinking…
Infallible…means it’s not possible that the decision is wrong…
Right…not wrong…
So - if a person make a right decision…then isn’t that decision, by definition “infallible”?

Indeed. Esp. when folks acknowledge that the Holy Spirit was involved in this decision…

what else could it be but infallible, if there is no error admitted in the result?

 

[PRmerger]

Someone can be right but the decision not be infallible. I can respect and consider someone’s opinion on something, even yield to it as reasonable and proper, without needing anything like calling it “infallible”.

Are you prepared to endorse all the Arian councils?

Given that we are agreed that the Holy Spirit was involved in the discernment process of declaring the canon…are you saying that a decision that was made that was assisted by the HS is* fallible?*

 

[PRmerger]

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

Well, I’m still understanding your “what I say” as, “When I read a text I just know it’s inspired because of the fact that I’m a Christian”.…which is, of course, a very obfuscatory and dubious standard.

One cannot have anything but a healthy skepticism to that kind of reasoning.

And the other way I’m understanding your “what I say” is: * “God gave us the canon* (yes! Very Catholic, this!)* and used the Church…but I still stand by my statement that you can’t trust anything that the Catholic Church has said.”*…

which is, of course, contradictory.

Bottom line: the ONLY way you can know that Hebrews, Matthew, Mark, Luke, 3 John (which doesn’t even mention Jesus once!), Revelation…is…

because you give tacit submission to the authority of…

the Catholic Church.