Quote:
Nice straw man!
No where did I say or argue that Jesus intended for different versions of Christianity to exist. What Jesus/God want and what Man does have been different since the beginning.
I asked you multiple times if you see a visible, apostolic church in the New Testament. Your initial answer was a small c catholic church, but that it was just a loose structure in place but it's really pretty murky. When I pressed you on an actual answer you responded with "I think it's pretty clear that early on there were different versions of Christianity". This is precisely what I was responding to.
In and from the actual New Testament writings, can you show me any instance where having differing versions of Christianity was accepted and tolerated, or encouraged? One example?
I am not aware of one. Anytime there was dissention or differences we see calls for unity and actions to bring that unity to the whole church. This was my point. No straw man here.
Quote:
Here's a good example of the flaw in your your argument. In Genesis we see that Adam and Eve ignored God's will and ate from the Tree of Life. Based on your statement above, we could actual read that as God put the Tree of Life in Garden, intending for Adam and Eve to eat of it and fall. I doubt this is an argument you would try to make, but that shows the weakness in what you wrote.
Again you are attempting to make arguments on my behalf that I am either not attempting to make or would never make. Then telling me how weak my so-called "argument" that I didn't make in the first place is. What you are doing here would be an example of a straw man. It might be more effective for you to articulate and defend your position, and for me to articulate and defend my position, and through questions of each other's views allow each other to speak. This in fact would help us dialog in an honest and charitable manner.
Quote:
However, from Scriptures we do know that as early as Acts 15, a council was needed because there was already a dispute that was necessary to address. We also see Paul oppose Peter in Galatians 2.
I'm not sure why this is a controversial point?
The fact that the New Testament has many examples of the church and its leadership consistently demanding correct teaching, understanding, and unity in all things regarding the faith is not controversial. What would be controversial is claiming that there were different versions of Christianity and it was no big deal - and that the apostles and early church leaders were okay with that and did not take action to correct the differences and ensure the correct teachings were communicated (example Acts 15 and Galatians 2). Jesus instituted a church that could handle the issues of the day, not a book. This is evident throughout Christianity from the beginning.
Quote:
The argument against Luther and the Book of James is one of my more favorite ones to respond to.
First, yes early on he took the same view of the Fathers that James (and other books) were more debated and questioned before being accepted. I don't think that's controversial to hold the same view of the Fathers.
Being that you 'straw-manned' your way into it, I am not surprised.
You are taking a lot of liberty with the view of the Fathers and their apparently unanimous view that Luther also agreed with. Quite the stretch. Especially given that all of these books were ultimately accepted and included in the traditions and practice of the early church, and the Canon, some thousand to fifteen hundred years before Luther was even born. Quite presumptuous of Luther to think he finally got it right and that generation after generation before him had it wrong.
Quote:
Second, Yes he struggled with reconciling James and Paul (Specifically Romans and Galatians). Most christians should struggle with that though.
I have no struggle reconciling James and Paul.
Quote:
Third, As I'm sure you're aware, he slept of a bed of straw. So in his view James was the "every man's" handbook on how to live, not the revolutionary concepts that the Gospels and some of Pauls letters were.
That is a creative and novel spin.
Quote:
Fourth, As I'm sure you know, at the end of Luther's life, he was of the opinion you could burn all of his books except for 3. The Large and Small Catechism and The Bondage of the Will. I believe James is quoted in the Catechisms, and I'm pretty sure in Bondage of the Will.
So while it sounds like a good argument at the superficial level, it falls apart pretty quickly.
So you are saying that because Luther didn't want to burn the Catechisms and the Bondage of Will from his deathbed, he never advocated removing the Deuterocanonicals or the 4 books cited from the NT? That his calling the book of James an epistle of straw was actually out of affection for the book and the common man? That he did not rearrange the order of the books of the Bible?
Actually nothing I have said falls apart. At all.
Quote:
Quote:
The Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books were eventually removed from most Protestant Bibles altogether. My guess is your Bible does not have them. Did you know that the original King James Bible in 1611 included the these OT books, and continued to include them until around 1885 when they were removed from the Bible?
The primary Lutheran publisher has a great book on The Apocryphal books: The Apocrypha with study notes and all.
I have these books already in my Bible so I don't need to seek them out or go online and order them separately. Thanks for the link though.
Quote:
I'm assuming your aware that to this day the OT in The Orthodox book is different than the OT of Roman Catholics. Neither has officially closed their canon (as far as I'm aware). I believe they also order the Psalms different.
So while good history, it actually supports my position, not yours.
I am aware of the fact that the Orthodox have everything contained in the Catholic Bible - along with a few additional writings that were not included in the Catholic Canon. This does not present me with any issue whatsoever, and certainly does not support your position, or Luther's, or any individual for excluding them, moving them, or altering them in any way.
Quote:
Quote:
This begs the question does it not?? WHO, what organization or what man/men, made the decision to go against more than 1,500 to 1,800 years of Christian practice and Tradition and remove these books, and by what authority do they claim to be able to do this?
We are discussing the Biblical Canon, and if you want to hold to Scripture alone I would think you need to know you have the right books in your Bible and that there is nothing extra or nothing missing. That your Bible is correct and complete.
See above.
It's not a concern of mine what others did or didn't do with different versions.
Including Martin Luther?? This is quite an alarming position to take on such an important issue as the Bible, God's Holy Word. I mean if you are going to hold to Sola Scriptura you better have the correct scriptures IMO.
Honest questionhow do you know your version is the correct version and not missing something or have something extra? This takes us back to the idea of unity in the faith that we were discussing at the top. Different versions of Christianity were not accepted in the New Testament or early church, so why should they be accepted today?
Quote:
Luther, Calvin, Swingly, Wesley, etc. were all working from the same Scriptures, and (presumably) all had access to the writings and interpretations of the church fathers, and yet they all came to different competing conclusions and interpretations of very important theological issues. How is this possible if they are all working from a Sola Scriptura doctrine? Which one got it "right" and which ones got it wrong? How do we know who to listen to?
Quote:
Why limit it to these guys? Lets go back further to see what caused the Great Schism.
Differing views on Papal Supremacy (primary) and secondary issues around the Filioque, etc.
They were still one Church at that time and had access to the same sources...yet split the Church entirely over those issues. Who was right?
I don't think either the Eastern or Western church is happy about the schism, and I would love to see the churches completely reunify. However, I wholeheartedly believe that both the Orthodox and Catholic churches and their people are all a part of the One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic faith and have been for over 2,000 years. We have a common foundation for roughly a thousand years and the schism doesn't change that in my view. Both are Apostolic, and both go all the way back to the first days. I watched the Divine Liturgy last Sunday and truly enjoyed itand I was able to follow along with no issues whatsoever.
Quote:
But lets talk directly about your point now. Do you know what Luther (and others) wanted more than anything? A true Council to debate and discuss, not a split Church. What did Roman Catholics do?
First, they put a bounty out to bring in Luther Dead or Alive.
Despite what you may think, I recognize that the Church was in need of reform. If Luther had endeavored to force reform from within the church he would probably be a saint today. Instead, Luther was the tip of the spear in what would amount to the greatest tragedy in all of Christiandom. It's interesting to think what the world might look like today if Luther had either worked for reform from within, or if that proved impossible sought ecumenism with the Orthodox faith. The reality in my view is that Luther was one man that thought he knew more than both, the East & West.
Quote:
Second, we get the Augsburg Diet, which produced one of the better confessions ever written (imo), but that Roman Catholics where wholly unprepared for. Ironically it's assumed to this day that the Vatican has the original copy of the Augsburg Confession that was taken from the Lutherans and never given back. The Lutherans never received a copy of Rome's response, but had people transcribing to recreate it.
Third, the Council we finally got was Trent, which was a joke. It can be summarized as this: Follow the Roman Catholic teaching or be anathema. Fortunately, Martin Chemnitz wrote one of the best 4 volume rebuttals available to point out all the flaws of that Council.
So who do I think was right? I'm Lutheran.
What would have been wonderful to see? A true Council to debate the issues, not death threats.
I am not completely absolving the Catholic Church in how all of this was handled, but to act like Luther was altruistic, innocent, choir boy humbly approaching reform is a little disingenuous. The first thing that the church did was not put a bounty on Luther's head.
Quote:
Quote:
Please show me where in the Bible it is taught that the Bible is the ONLY infallible source for a Christian? Please give me chapter and verse that prove the Bible is the sole authority, above any other authority.
Not a cop out. Was limited on time.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
I see that scripture is useful or profitable, not that scripture is the ONLY infallible authority for a Christian. At the time 2 Timothy was written some of what ultimately became the scriptures were yet to be written.
Quote:
As I also mentioned, Acts 15 shows that as soon as a decision was made, it was written down as the first Epistle.
I agree completely that the Church made an authoritative decision in ACTS 15 and sent a letter to the people confirming what they decided, but this in no way proves the doctrine of Sola Scriptura or says that every time a decision was made it was always written down.
If either 2 Tim 3:16-17 or Acts 15 meant what you imply, how do you square that with 2 Thessalonians 2:15?
"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by epistle?"
Scripture is telling us to hold fast to traditions taught by word of mouth AND written letter. Both, and there is no assumption or implication there that everything would be written down. Tradition & Scripture go hand in hand and work together, not by themselves apart from the other.
Quote:
When Satan tries to tempt Jesus, was does Jesus say? "It is written." Btw, this also shows that Satan is very familiar with the Scriptures.
Again, Jesus referencing Scripture (OT), and Satan being familiar does not make the case for the Bible to be the sole, infallible, and all encompassing authority for a Christian.
You still have not adequately addressed the interpretation issue, either. You are Lutheran. How do you know with certainty that Luther got it completely right and Calvin was wrong? Is this important or no? Same Bible, same text, same church Fathers, different doctrine.
Quote:
There's also a long history of the Father's setting the Scriptures up as the authority.
St. Augustine - "Although the Lord Jesus had done many things, not all were written, but those were selected to be written which were thought to be sufficient for salvation of the believers."
St. Cyril - "Not all things that the Lord did have been written, but what the writers believed would suffice both for morals and for dogmas, in order that we may through the right faith and works, and shining through virtue, come to the kingdom of heaven through Jesus Christ
St. Chrysostom - "Matthew wrote when the believers in Christ from among the Jews had approached him and asked that he would send them in writing what he had taught them by word of mouth, that it might be preserved."
Jerome - "Whatever does not have authority in Holy Scripture can be rejected as easily as it can be approved."
St. Augustine - " Since the Holy Spirit did not want to have these thing written, who will say that it was either this or that? And if anyone will be so rash and bold that he dares to say it, how will he prove it?
And so forth.
I would say there is a long history of the Fathers setting the scriptures up as
AN authority, not THE authority.
There is an abundance of writings from the church fathers, and you would be hard pressed to have them making a case for scripture alone, separate and set apart from the traditions and the body of Christ the church. The concept of Sola Scriptura was completely foreign to them. They tested what was written against the Traditions and this is how they determined what was inspired. The Catholic Church has absolutely zero contradictions or problems with anything you have quoted from the Father's. Now did all of the fathers get everything right 100% of the time? No. But neither did Peter. To every single one of your quotes above I say Amen. I agree.
You still have not made a case for Sola Scriptura. 2 Tim 3:16-17 does not say what you want or need for it to say. Is that the best verse you have to attempt to show that Sola Scriptura is Scriptural?