Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[PRmerger]

You don’t read much PRmerger do you?

Peace!!!

 

[PRmerger]

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

Just so I know that I am understanding you correctly: your position is that God spoke to you and told you that Hebrews is inspired?

I know you mentioned somewhere previously that you’re not saying that God did this for every book (if I remember correctly?) but that He did do this for some of them?

And that you admit that He didn’t exactly tell you that all of the other 400 or so ancient Christian texts are NOT inspired, but you just don’t believe that they are?

Is that a correct synopsis of your answer to: how do you know that the 27 books of the NT are inspired without the CC telling you so?

 

[guanophore]

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 think both things are true, Tomyris. What God gives to the Church entrusted to her keep. I am not sure if “property” is the right word, but She is the custodian of them, and is appointed minister of them.

1 Tim 6:20

20 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you.

The Gospel was committed once for all to the Church, and the Church penned it, promulgated it and protected it.

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.

This sounds remarkably similar to what the Mormon’s say about their book. “the burinng in the bosom will tell you” its real.

It is also rather shallow…Sola Scriptura assumes a canon, and that assumption allows those who adhere to it to avoid any depth of criticism with regard to how this occurred.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

It is also rather shallow…Sola Scriptura assumes a canon, and that assumption allows those who adhere to it to avoid any depth of criticism with regard to how this occurred.

Indeed. And it sets up folks to add/subtract to the canon at their own discretion.

In fact, Tomi speaks of people struggling with Paul. Here is a Christian who rejects the writings of Paul as being inspired.

From Tomi’s position, she cannot argue against his discernment. He claims to use the same method that Tomi uses in discerning whether something is inspired. He just comes up with a different answer than she does.

lasttrumpet.org/paul_false_apostle.htm

 

[guanophore]

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

It is a silly question, and it is avoiding a response.

Silly because no council or anyone can “force someone to believe against their will and conscience”.

Avoiding because, if a council can err, then how can you know your canon is right? Just by the burning in your bosom?

2 Tim 3:14-4:1
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

These Scriptures to which the Apostle refers are contained in the Septuagint. How did Paul know this collection was sacred writing? Do you think he had a burning in the bosom?

 

[JRKH]

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

Somehow I knew this was coming…

Oh, sure you don’t.

Darn, you noticed the saw behind my back…

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.

The meat of the matter…At the start of the Protestant reformation, the idea was not to splinter into many different churches but to reform the one Church. Further, Scripture (remember Sola Scriptura) is quite keen on unity, being of one mind, praising with one voice, avoiding dissension, telling it to the Church, and of the councilior model for settling serious disputes.
One would think that the early reformers, embracing and espousing Sola Scriptura, would have done everything possible to come together in unity - as per the instructions in Scriptures.
This is why I would expect Lutherans and other protestants to do so - because Scripture tells them to.

And after all, wasn’t part of the reason for the reformation the assertion that the Catholic Church FAILED to uphold Scripture? So why compare the protestant church model to the Catholic one - instead of comparing the protestant church model it to Scripture?

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

Does authoritative work?

Properly understood…Yes.
One must always equate authority with responsibility…not with power…this is a key difference when discussing the good and bad aspects of these matters.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Indeed. And it sets up folks to add/subtract to the canon at their own discretion.

In fact, Tomi speaks of people struggling with Paul. Here is a Christian who rejects the writings of Paul as being inspired.

From Tomi’s position, she cannot argue against his discernment. He claims to use the same method that Tomi uses in discerning whether something is inspired. He just comes up with a different answer than she does.

lasttrumpet.org/paul_false_apostle.htm

The bolded is the real crux in this. Once the Reformers rejected the authority of “church” (in contradiction to Scripture) all restraints were off - and they could really do nothing about it.

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

It is also rather shallow…Sola Scriptura assumes a canon, and that assumption allows those who adhere to it to avoid any depth of criticism with regard to how this occurred.

One should hope not, and I would suggest that at least the “magisterial” communions do not. The development of the canon of scripture is a complex issue, with numerous numberings, even notwithstanding Reformation era communions and those following.
One thing I believe to be important is the understanding of canon, which AFAIK means “rule”.
Catholics seem to be unconcerned that various Orthodox sees have differing canons. And Cardinal Cajetan and others placed the deuterocanon on a lower level, and yet can consider them canonical:

Now, according to his [Jerome] 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.”

It seems there are to him two rules,

1. “a rule for confirming matters of faith”
2. “a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose.”

Using #2, Lutherans could consider the DC’s canon, as that is precisely how Lutherans have used them, and should be using them, even to the point of use in the lectionary.

Jon

 

[JRKH]

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

I did.

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

No - because councils cannot do this anyway.
That said - What do councils do???
A council is called to address some question or issue. This is the “Tell it to the Church” that is spoken of in Mt 18 and demonstrated in acts 15.
Members of the Church come together. The first thing done is to invite and to pray for the holy Spirit to guide. Then they proceed to discuss, to debate, to read, pray over and discuss, debate, read, and pray some more. During all of this, error is ferreted out and Truth raised up. Finally, under the guidance of the Spirit, a teaching is promulgated.

This is the councilior model as Scripture would have it.

Now - based on the above…Can you give me a biblical reason to assume that the council erred?

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

=JRKH;12204989]Somehow I knew this was coming…

You know me too well, James.

Darn, you noticed the saw behind my back…

:frighten:

The meat of the matter…At the start of the Protestant reformation, the idea was not to splinter into many different churches but to reform the one Church. Further, Scripture (remember Sola Scriptura) is quite keen on unity, being of one mind, praising with one voice, avoiding dissension, telling it to the Church, and of the councilior model for settling serious disputes.
One would think that the early reformers, embracing and espousing Sola Scriptura, would have done everything possible to come together in unity - as per the instructions in Scriptures.
This is why I would expect Lutherans and other protestants to do so - because Scripture tells them to.

And after all, wasn’t part of the reason for the reformation the assertion that the Catholic Church FAILED to uphold Scripture? So why compare the protestant church model to the Catholic one - instead of comparing the protestant church model it to Scripture?

Good question. Of course, that puts us all in the same boat, whether we practice sola scriputra or not. :sad_yes:

Properly understood…Yes.
One must always equate authority with responsibility…not with power…this is a key difference when discussing the good and bad aspects of these matters.

I actually think this was a key issue during the reformation era. I sense we are moving toward responsibility, and away from power.

Jon

 

[JRKH]

You know me too well, James.

Hee Hee…yup.

Good question. Of course, that puts us all in the same boat, whether we practice sola scriputra or not. :sad_yes:

Yes - unfortunately tis true - I think this is the main reason that the Catholic Church has been reaching out so much.

I actually think this was a key issue during the reformation era. I sense we are moving toward responsibility, and away from power.

Amen.
The dual role of the Papacy in those times…spiritual AND temporal leader…caused many problems. Temporal power was an attraction and temptation.
It’s much better now that the Holy Father can concentrate on the single matter of being spiritual leader of the faithful.

For the various protestant communions - I pray that they come to see how un-biblical their current church model is and humbly seek to come together and resolve their issues.
Of course after 500 years of divergence in doctrine…that is a nearly insurmountable goal. Fortunately we believe that all things are possible for God.

Peace
James

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Hee Hee…yup.

Yes - unfortunately tis true - I think this is the main reason that the Catholic Church has been reaching out so much.

Amen.
The dual role of the Papacy in those times…spiritual AND temporal leader…caused many problems. Temporal power was an attraction and temptation.
It’s much better now that the Holy Father can concentrate on the single matter of being spiritual leader of the faithful.

For the various protestant communions - I pray that they come to see how un-biblical their current church model is and humbly seek to come together and resolve their issues.
Of course after 500 years of divergence in doctrine…that is a nearly insurmountable goal. Fortunately we believe that all things are possible for God.

Peace
James

If that is a call for accountability then Lutherans accept the invitation.

 

[JRKH]

If that is a call for accountability then Lutherans accept the invitation.

 

[AbideWithMe]

2 Tim 3:14-4:1
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

These Scriptures to which the Apostle refers are contained in the Septuagint. How did Paul know this collection was sacred writing? Do you think he had a burning in the bosom?

Hi Guanophore–Thanks for the replies from you (and thanks, PRmerger) to my posts last night. I am, as usual, not caught up with this thread, but this brings a question to mind for me: How do you think Paul knew what was Hebrew scripture in his time?

 

[Tomyris]

Indeed. And it sets up folks to add/subtract to the canon at their own discretion.

In fact, Tomi speaks of people struggling with Paul. Here is a Christian who rejects the writings of Paul as being inspired.

From Tomi’s position, she cannot argue against his discernment. He claims to use the same method that Tomi uses in discerning whether something is inspired. He just comes up with a different answer than she does.

lasttrumpet.org/paul_false_apostle.htm

Actually I have presented only part of my position, because I thought we were discussing a narrow issue. This individual can be refuted from the Scriptures by demonstrating that the non-Pauline sections of the NT present the same theology as the Pauling: Paul and John and Jesus are in agreement.

There is also this from the Westminster Confession of Faith:

II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these: Of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Of the New Testament: The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul’s Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians I, Corinthians II, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians I , Thessalonians II , To Timothy I , To Timothy II, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation of John. All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.[7]

III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings

So we do have a canon. I think we regard that the development of the WCF occurred in a Council, so that should make you…happy?

 

[PRmerger]

Hi Guanophore–Thanks for the replies from you (and thanks, PRmerger) to my posts last night. I am, as usual, not caught up with this thread, but this brings a question to mind for me: How do you think Paul knew what was Hebrew scripture in his time?

Through Sacred Tradition, ABM. The oral testimony of the elders in the Faith spreading the kerygma.

 

[Tomyris]

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.

This is a mess. Some of it I said, some of it I think could be taken from what I said, some of it I don’t know how you got there.

God gave us the canon. He used the Church to do so, and to protect it and to transmit it.

We ultimately believe the Bible is the Bible because God works faith in us that it is so.

I did not say that I did not trust anything the Catholic Church has said. I think I said that tends to be a foundation for Protestant thinking, or something like that. I think the CC has had a lot of very bright people looking at important and weighty issues for a very long time. Their answers are worth considering. That’s not the same as

because you give tacit submission to the authority of…

the Catholic Church

which I suspect you have as a hotkey on your keyboard.

I think we are talking past each other. I don’t even know what you mean by

because you give tacit submission to the authority of…

the Catholic Church

Telling a Protestant they are giving tacit submission to the authority of the Catholic Church and not expecting a reaction …

 

[Tomyris]

Through Sacred Tradition, ABM. The oral testimony of the elders in the Faith spreading the kerygma.

They had the Septuagint, which was regarded as a valid translation of the OT, and is still heavily used by the Orthodox.

It wasn’t ‘Sacred Tradition’ - they had the Scriptures.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually I have presented only part of my position, because I thought we were discussing a narrow issue. This individual can be refuted from the Scriptures by demonstrating that the non-Pauline sections of the NT present the same theology as the Pauling: Paul and John and Jesus are in agreement.

So you start from a position that the kerygma has already been known, disseminated, and that which conforms to the kerygma is considered to be inspired, and that which is not in conformity must then not be inspired?

 

[Tomyris]

So you start from a position that the kerygma has already been known, disseminated, and that which conforms to the kerygma is considered to be inspired, and that which is not in conformity must then not be inspired?

Wow.

No.

I start from a position that the kerygma has already been known, disseminated, and that the Scriptures are inspired. Deductions and reasonings, however much they are in conformity with Scripture, that we make from Scripture are not inspired, whether they are right or wrong. Not everything true is inspired.