To be fair, access to scripture was severely limited during that 1500 year period and there were abuses by the church (ie indulgences) that caused people to question.

Disagree. Scripture has been read publicly in churches, day after day, year after year.

And the fact is, that's what the universal and historical definition of scripture is - what is read publicly in the church.

What does St Paul tell us is the pillar and bulwark of truth?

A. The Bible alone
B. The theology of Martin Luther
C. The musings of John Calvin
D. The church of the Living God

bigcat22 said:

---

To be fair, access to scripture was severely limited during that 1500 year period and there were abuses by the church (ie indulgences) that caused people to question.

---

I honestly had no problem with limiting access to scripture at that time. Without the proper teaching authority, it leaves everything up to personal interpretation.

Also, one interesting point of order is that it's not the indulgences that's are the problem, but the selling of them. This is the sin of simony

Sorry for delayed response here...just finding the time.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you believe that (A) the Apocryphal books are Holy Scripture, or (B) do you believe the Apocryphal books are not equal to Scripture?

---

(A) The books are part of holy scripture

(b) The books have generally been considered less than canon as was the historical view.

So we take the historical view that they are good at profitable to read, but not raised to the level of others, as was the historical view.

---

Forgive me, but you are straddling the fence on the issue. On one hand you say they are a part of Holy Scripture, but on the other hand they are less than canon (Luther said not equal to scripture). Then you state you are being "consistent with the historical view" as if the consensus of the early Church, or the past millennium, was that these books were less than canon which would have made them not scripture. It is just the opposite actually. Just because you state it as fact does not make it true, and history shows us a very different picture.

It was the Church that testified to the scriptures, not individual church fathers. You can quote whoever you want but those fathers only spoke as individuals. It was always left to the Church to decide, and your position is not consistent with the historical Christian Church.

Quote:

---

They're great questions for someone who wants to argue against the apocrypha. Since I'm not, they aren't relevant.

---

I can almost appreciate your somewhat flexible treatment of the Deuterocanonical books with regard to Scripture, but the fact that the Scriptures serve as your ultimate authority make your nuanced approach untenable. You say you aren't arguing against the apocrypha but in reality you are.

I feel like you almost want to take the less legalistic view of what is Scripture more like the Orthodox approach vs. Rome's. However your Sola Scriptura doctrine AND your treatment of the Deuterocanonicals make that quite problematic.

Quote:

---

Your claim is that somehow the number of books in Scripture is relevant to Sola Scriptura. Since I can claim the same Scripture count as you and hold to Sola Scriptura, your argument has to change.

---

But you don't. You don't claim the same scriptures as the Orthodox or the Catholics. Like it or not these are the apostolic Christian churches and both include the books that you reject as canonical. Additionally, neither the Orthodox or the Catholics hold to Sola Scriptura so whatever minor differences we have are negligible.

Do you know how ridiculous it sounds to claim Sola Scriptura is binding on Christians and is right, but you don't actually define what is included in the Scriptura?? You are trying to split the baby and have it both ways and you just can't. Sorry.

Quote:

---

You seemingly now have to argue that Sola Scriptura means holding, at least in the original iteration, had no problem with same Scriptures as you.

---

If I am following this correctly you are making my point...If you are going to hold to a Sola Scriptura position meaning the Bible is your standard, then your standard cannot be changed or it is not longer the standard.

Quote:

---

Your comment about Luther leading to the removal is a massive stretch. You're basic argument is that because Luther made historically accurate statements about the books that he kept in his bible translation, that in turn that let future groups remove it?

---

Is this what you are referring to? These are direct quotes with links to LUTHERAN sources. These are not my words....

Quote:

---

this is from the Evangelical Lutheran Synod:
Quote:
https://els.org/resources/answers/apocrypha/

"Martin Luther's German translation did include these books in between the Old Testament and the New Testament, with this important note: "Apocrypha: These books are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures, and yet are useful and good for reading." Due to a movement in England in the nineteenth century, these "informative but not verbally inspired" books were excluded from English versions, although the RSV had included it in certain editions. It was felt that I there would be too much confusion between these writings (whose authorship was unknown and/or spurious) and the 66 books of Scripture itself."

and this is from the Lutheran Missouri Synod:
Quote:
https://kimberlinglutheran.com/2011/01/13/the-apocrypha-early-church-councils-and-martin-luther/

"By putting all the Apocrypha together instead of interspersing them as before, Luther helped set up a churchly culture that could later more-easily remove the Apocrypha altogether from the Bible. And this largely took place in the Bibles Protestant's used in the 1800's (1900s for German Lutherans who were transitioning to English).

Luther's most-famous quotation about the Apocrypha comes from his preface to the Apocrypha in his German translation of the Bible: These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.

---

So I guess take this up with your Lutheran brothers because that is their view.

Quote:

---

I actually suspect that you'll find that it was because the Jews rejected the Apocrypha, that filtered into Christianity

---

It didn't "filter into Christianity" until the Reformation introduced it to Christianity.

I do think I have a better understanding of where you are coming from, but I am confused on how you can square your views on what is Scripture with your Sola Scriptura position. In my view they are in conflict with each other.

Quote:

---

I can understand your position here. I would refer you to the Acts of the Apostles chapter 10 and 15
We see here St. Peter's vision inspiring him to baptize the Gentiles this is a unilateral decision made by him based of his interpretation of his vision of the unclean animals. Later after the Gentiles had been accepted the question came up if the Gentiles had to live under the law if Moses this caused factions within the Church. They called the Council of Jerusalem where Peter stated the Gentiles shouldn't be burdened by the law their Jewish ancestors couldn't bear and James clarified that what should be avoided within this new allowance. I think this demonstrates how the Church being led by the Spirit made authoritative decisions even with descent.

We also see after this Paul offer a fraternal correction to Peter when he doesn't sit with the Gentile Christians. This was needed and shows that the infallibility granted to Peter doesn't extend to smaller decisions like who to eat with.

I agree that formal teachings are a result of a journey, but there is a structure to the journey. I also agree that all of us including the pope can be and should be corrected when we fail to liveout our faith as we should.

---

This may deserve a different thread, but I don't see how anyone can read Acts and come away thinking Peter was the head of the early Church. It's clearly James. He was head of the Jeruselam church, the birthplace of Christianity and where the vast majority of all Christians lived. He was always the one to discipline, guide, and defend Paul. The was the person who announced the decision from the Council of Jerusalem, which certainly makes it seem like he was the ranking leader. Now I don't think the Apostles spent a bunch of time fretting over hierarchy, especially since Jesus chastised them about it already. But if we're judging from the behaviors of people documented in Acts, then James was clearly the leader.

Quote:

---

Also, one interesting point of order is that it's not the indulgences that's are the problem, but the selling of them. This is the sin of simony

---

Wait, what?

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

Also, one interesting point of order is that it's not the indulgences that's are the problem, but the selling of them. This is the sin of simony

---

Wait, what?

---

Indulgences are still given in the church today, it's the selling of them that is the problem.

I must have missed where James was given the keys.

I'll start a separate thread on this topic so we don't derail the current thread any more than we (I) already have.

Zobel said:

---

Disagree. Scripture has been read publicly in churches, day after day, year after year.

And the fact is, that's what the universal and historical definition of scripture is - what is read publicly in the church.

---

It's pretty well document that most of the common priests were illiterate. They also spoke the mass in Latin which few commoners could actually understand.

Kinda the whole point of the reformation was the reformers started reading the Bible in its languages and realized what was being taught was not in there.

Every Latin Mass I have been to the scripture is read in Latin and English, and the homily is in English as well. Also if the common prayers are they same at Mass you understand what they mean after a few times even if you don't speak Latin.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Disagree. Scripture has been read publicly in churches, day after day, year after year.

And the fact is, that's what the universal and historical definition of scripture is - what is read publicly in the church.

---

It's pretty well document that most of the common priests were illiterate. They also spoke the mass in Latin which few commoners could actually understand.

Kinda the whole point of the reformation was the reformers started reading the Bible in its languages and realized what was being taught was not in there.

---

It's almost like reading scripture in a language no one knew, preventing anyone from reading scriptures themselves, preventing translations of scripture into other languages, and preventing Bible ownership was intended to keep people from figuring out all this stuff they've been told want really in there.

K, now do the East where liturgy and prayers and scripture were always in the common vernacular.

Zobel said:

---

K, now do the East where liturgy and prayers and scripture were always in the common vernacular.

---

Good for them for getting that right. Are you Orthodox?

Yes. I guess I'm saying you can't blame every disagreement with Rome on Rome being corrupt.

Jesus prayed for Peter to feed his sheep, not James...

jrico2727 said:

---

Every Latin Mass I have been to the scripture is read in Latin and English, and the homily is in English as well. Also if the common prayers are they same at Mass you understand what they mean after a few times even if you don't speak Latin.

---

You were around 500 years ago and they spoke english in germany? That's impressive!

Zobel said:

---

Yes. I guess I'm saying you can't blame every disagreement with Rome on Rome being corrupt.

---

This is a weird argument.

Now you're asking the common person to be aware of what's going on hundreds to thousands of miles away in countries they've never visited and might not have ever heard of?

I guess a better question, that I don't know the answer to, is how frequently did the Orthodox come to Germany to evangelize and convert Roman Catholics to Orthodox? That's probably the only way they ever would have heard of the Orthodox otherwise?

I think you might have read something into what I said.The suggestion is that "the reformers started reading the Bible in its languages and realized what was being taught was not in there." This was echoed by the concept that there were practices "intended to keep people from figuring out all this stuff they've been told want really in there."

If that were the case, you would find disagreement only based on scriptural disagreements, and you would not expect to find those disagreements in places where people were always from the beginning aware of the scripture and the words of worship in their local languages. But you don't find that at all, and some of the most fundamental concepts of the Reformation are rejected in the East.

So on the fact of it this is an insufficient explanation for the schisms. When you add in that Protestantism itself, all who presumably have found out what's "in there" is separated into several large denominations and multiple smaller ones (sometimes huge sections of the large ones aren't in communion with each other!) the entire line of reasoning becomes suspect.

Put another way. Were there abuses and unscriptural practices? It seems certain, yes. Does that explain the Reformation or even most of it? I think no.

Quote:

---

Now you're asking the common person to be aware of what's going on hundreds to thousands of miles away in countries they've never visited and might not have ever heard of?

---

No. I'm asking people today to use the resources they have today. The Lord's teachings are pretty consistent that we are responsible based on what we have been given. An illiterate German peasant - or an illiterate Arabic one - doesn't have the depth of resources the average American has today. In fact, you and I have a leg up on every Reformer even, because we have access to historical and patristic texts they never did, and well translated to boot.

There is no excuse to persist in schism on what amount to questions of historical inquiry.

Gotcha.

Quote:

---

Put another way. Were there abuses and unscriptural practices? It seems certain, yes. Does that explain the Reformation or even most of it? I think no.

---

I'll be honest. I think the majority of the Reformation was completely avoidable. They should have been able to work through the issues.

I look at the Augsburg Confession, for example, and there's not a lot that separated Rome and the Reformers. They should have been able to resolve their issues.

I know people like to blame Luther for the split, but I actually think it all started with the Bishop of Rome claiming papal supremacy 500+ years earlier (as opposed to papal primacy which could be supported by all). The claim of supremacy "changes the math" so to speak because you have a party who feels that can always overrule the norm, the logical or the reasonable.

In Luther's time, it meant instead of debating the 95 theses or the Augsburg Confession, they could simply condemn it and its writers. Why? Because why not?

This is what I think the Orthodox got mostly right. Change is very difficult to achieve. This necessitates tons of discussion and debate for anything to happen. This can create its own problems, but if those were the only two scenarios, it would be the preferred scenario.

Quote:

---

There is no excuse to persist in schism on what amount to questions of historical inquiry.

---

I think a lot could be addressed, especially in the "non-denom" setting. HoweverI think there has been a lot of good doctrinal development since the fathers that would also need to be addressed, much of which is disjointed today due to it occurring after the major schisms.

Right, agreed completely. In a rational world, a great majority of doctrinal battle lines should be able to be wiped off the map by purely theological indifferent historical inquiry. They're not, and they're not going to be, because people that hold them have created doctrinal bulwarks that won't allow it.

Look at the Church of Christ. They have a kind of presuppositional framework about the scriptures and the early Church that makes it completely impossible to have an actual discussion. The support is circular between their views and the scripture, even if their presuppositions require things we know weren't true historically. What can you do about that?

When you devolve the generally innocuous claims of sola scriptura as a rallying cry against corruption into the modern result, you have absolutely no way to establish common ground. Any person can simply point to their bible and say "I don't see that in here" regardless of whether it is actually in there or if they are ignorant of it. And if the item in question does happen to be in there, there's the irrefutable fallback of "that's not what I think it means." It's hopeless.

Quote:

---

Forgive me, but you are straddling the fence on the issue. On one hand you say they are a part of Holy Scripture, but on the other hand they are less than canon (Luther said not equal to scripture). Then you state you are being "consistent with the historical view" as if the consensus of the early Church, or the past millennium, was that these books were less than canon which would have made them not scripture. It is just the opposite actually. Just because you state it as fact does not make it true, and history shows us a very different picture.

It was the Church that testified to the scriptures, not individual church fathers. You can quote whoever you want but those fathers only spoke as individuals. It was always left to the Church to decide, and your position is not consistent with the historical Christian Church.

---

As Zobel pointed out, there's no canon in the east. I'm not aware of any defined canon prior to Trent. So once again, the reason you define your canon to include those books is because of Trent and Trent alone. Chemnitz in his rebuttal to Trent could not understand why Rome took this position of deviating from what had been the norm.

But I also provided historical quotations from the likes of Augustine who underscored the challenges with those texts.

Quote:

---

I can almost appreciate your somewhat flexible treatment of the Deuterocanonical books with regard to Scripture, but the fact that the Scriptures serve as your ultimate authority make your nuanced approach untenable. You say you aren't arguing against the apocrypha but in reality you are.

I feel like you almost want to take the less legalistic view of what is Scripture more like the Orthodox approach vs. Rome's. However your Sola Scriptura doctrine AND your treatment of the Deuterocanonicals make that quite problematic.

---

Maybe the issue we've been having is that you want to exclude the Church from the discussion of Sola Scriptura. I don't. the dispute during the Reformation as not over the validity of the ancients, but over just how far off track Rome had gotten. Rome agreed to that point, they just disagreed on how far they had gotten off track.

For example, Chemnitz advocated that they not define the OT canon. We could have found agreement there.

But I really don't think the argument is about Sola Scriptura as I've said. The argument is really about what role does the "Church" play as the "pillar and foundation of truth." You would argue that leads to Holy Tradition that is found inside and outside of Scripture. I would argue that there can be some agreement in the sense that "extra-Biblical" things could be classified as adiaphora or "neither commanded or forbidding by the word of God."

A good example would be the life of Mary. Did she grow up in the Temple and have an arranged marriage with Joseph until she was past childbearing years? Did she remain a virgin (most Lutherans would have said yes btw). Was she assumed into heaven or did she die? Lutheran position is going to be more since it's not commanded in scripture, you can answer yes/no to those as you see fit.

Quote:

---

But you don't. You don't claim the same scriptures as the Orthodox or the Catholics. Like it or not these are the apostolic Christian churches and both include the books that you reject as canonical. Additionally, neither the Orthodox or the Catholics hold to Sola Scriptura so whatever minor differences we have are negligible.

---

Huh? You've previously agreed that Lutherans hold to the same 73 books (though you insert the word "begrudgingly"). Now you're arguing that's not true?

But aren't you just proving my point? Sola Scriptura did not mean to Luther that he could just remove books. I actually don't think Lutheranism would have survived had he taken that approach to be honest. He wouldn't have found support in the history of the church to do that.

Quote:

---

So I guess take this up with your Lutheran brothers because that is their view.

---

What's there to take up? They said the same things I did? I actually missed in your first quote the comment about the ESV and RSV, but also provided that detail. So happy coincidence.

There's nothing to prove.

Quote:

---

It didn't "filter into Christianity" until the Reformation introduced it to Christianity.

I do think I have a better understanding of where you are coming from, but I am confused on how you can square your views on what is Scripture with your Sola Scriptura position. In my view they are in conflict with each other.

---

First, I think it's more likely the invention of the printing press led to to increased literacy rates (cheaper books) and increased disbursement of books in general. People could now read what people had written vs relying on someone to tell them.

Further, this is an unsupported argument by you and frankly I don't think you'll be able to defend it.

Here's what we know as truths:

1. Luther advocated Sola Scriptura (among other Solas).
2. Luther highlighted historical challenges in both the OT and NT
3. Luther did not remove a single book from the Bible.

From that you are trying to draw the conclusion that future christians would look at those actions and just remove books from the OT? Why not the NT? If we stick to just christianity, there's just as strong a case, if not more so for the NT. I mean, take a book like Hebrews. The original thought was Paul wrote it, but it's now pretty clear he didn't. Why not use Sola Scriptura to remove it?

So for your claim to be valid, you need to justify why Sola Scriptura has meant that no major Christian group ever removed a book from the NT (I'm sure some fringe groups have), but did allow them to remove (in some sense) the apocrypha specifically.

Lutherans dont hold all the books as equal, so even if the lists are the same, saying they're equal to the RCC canon isn't quite true.

Quote:

---

As Zobel pointed out, there's no canon in the east. I'm not aware of any defined canon prior to Trent. So once again, the reason you define your canon to include those books is because of Trent and Trent alone. Chemnitz in his rebuttal to Trent could not understand why Rome took this position of deviating from what had been the norm.

But I also provided historical quotations from the likes of Augustine who underscored the challenges with those texts.

---

There is an important distinction you are missing...The entire Christian Church, both East and West, were in agreement on these Scriptures throughout history leading up to the Reformation. Both Orthodox and Catholic held and hold that the Deuterocanonicals are inspired scripture. It was not until the reformation, with Luther's treatment of them and his statement that they are not equal to Holy Scripture that the Church was compelled to address the issue more formally with Trent. Trent did not decide the issue, Trent just put it officially on the record.

Quote:

---

Maybe the issue we've been having is that you want to exclude the Church from the discussion of Sola Scriptura. I don't.

---

I guess I'm still confused on this because the Church, East and West, has NEVER held or considered the idea of Sola Scriptura so why would or should this novel idea introduced 1500 years into Christianity be considered or discussed?

Quote:

---

For example, Chemnitz advocated that they not define the OT canon. We could have found agreement there.

---

I don't agree. If you are going to throw out the Apostolic Traditions of the Church and their authoritative relationship alongside the Holy Scriptures, to then rely only or supremely on the Scriptures then you cannot avoid defining clearly what the Scriptures are. You can't straddle the fence.

Quote:

---

But I really don't think the argument is about Sola Scriptura as I've said. The argument is really about what role does the "Church" play as the "pillar and foundation of truth." You would argue that leads to Holy Tradition that is found inside and outside of Scripture. I would argue that there can be some agreement in the sense that "extra-Biblical" things could be classified as adiaphora or "neither commanded or forbidding by the word of God."

A good example would be the life of Mary. Did she grow up in the Temple and have an arranged marriage with Joseph until she was past childbearing years? Did she remain a virgin (most Lutherans would have said yes btw). Was she assumed into heaven or did she die? Lutheran position is going to be more since it's not commanded in scripture, you can answer yes/no to those as you see fit.

---

I would be able to agree with this in general because it seems you recognize that the deposit of faith was give to the Church and that the entire deposit of the faith is not found only in the pages of Scripture. However, this would also imply the Scriptures alone cannot be our ultimate authority.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

But you don't. You don't claim the same scriptures as the Orthodox or the Catholics. Like it or not these are the apostolic Christian churches and both include the books that you reject as canonical. Additionally, neither the Orthodox or the Catholics hold to Sola Scriptura so whatever minor differences we have are negligible.

---

Huh? You've previously agreed that Lutherans hold to the same 73 books (though you insert the word "begrudgingly"). Now you're arguing that's not true?

But aren't you just proving my point? Sola Scriptura did not mean to Luther that he could just remove books. I actually don't think Lutheranism would have survived had he taken that approach to be honest. He wouldn't have found support in the history of the church to do that.

---

Luther did not physically remove the Apocrypha in his translation, but he did significant harm to them in his treatment of them. His disclaimer that they are not equal to scripture, and his moving them to a different section altogether, was similar to your attempts here to straddle the fence on the matter.

Quote:

---

Here's what we know as truths:

1. Luther advocated Sola Scriptura (among other Solas).
2. Luther highlighted historical challenges in both the OT and NT
3. Luther did not remove a single book from the Bible.

---

In Luther's translation, did he put in the disclaimer that the Apocryphal Books were not equal to Scripture? Yes or No?

Quote:

---

From that you are trying to draw the conclusion that future christians would look at those actions and just remove books from the OT? Why not the NT? If we stick to just christianity, there's just as strong a case, if not more so for the NT. I mean, take a book like Hebrews. The original thought was Paul wrote it, but it's now pretty clear he didn't. Why not use Sola Scriptura to remove it?

So for your claim to be valid, you need to justify why Sola Scriptura has meant that no major Christian group ever removed a book from the NT (I'm sure some fringe groups have), but did allow them to remove (in some sense) the apocrypha specifically.

---

Talk about moving the goalposts here. Scripture is Scripture. I don't accept Removal or subjugation of any of it. An assault on any of it is an assault on the church and on the faith.

You know, just not worth it today.

Zobel said:

---

Right, agreed completely. In a rational world, a great majority of doctrinal battle lines should be able to be wiped off the map by purely theological indifferent historical inquiry. They're not, and they're not going to be, because people that hold them have created doctrinal bulwarks that won't allow it.

Look at the Church of Christ. They have a kind of presuppositional framework about the scriptures and the early Church that makes it completely impossible to have an actual discussion. The support is circular between their views and the scripture, even if their presuppositions require things we know weren't true historically. What can you do about that?

When you devolve the generally innocuous claims of sola scriptura as a rallying cry against corruption into the modern result, you have absolutely no way to establish common ground. Any person can simply point to their bible and say "I don't see that in here" regardless of whether it is actually in there or if they are ignorant of it. And if the item in question does happen to be in there, there's the irrefutable fallback of "that's not what I think it means." It's hopeless.

---

I look at it differently. I think Sola Scriptura has become the scapegoat for all the ills. I look at the primary disagreements with Rome, and even the Orthodox and I don't think Sola Scriptura was the dealbreaker. At least during the Reformation, common agreement could have found had there been a desire to do so. But alas, that didn't happen.

However, a group like the Church of Christ is a very different situation. I spent some time looking at them, and yeah, they don't attempt a historical argument. In a lot of ways, I believe they claim the history is just wrong and they "found the right theology."

I look back at college when I attended Grace Bible Church. There was zero discussion of historical christianity. That's not to say they didn't do a good job of educating on how to read the Scripture, but a lot of it was not in the context of the historical Church. As I left, I did start to see a bit of calvinism sneaking in, so maybe they will at least head that direction.

So when I look back at the Church of Christ or even Grace Bible Church, I don't really see Sola Scriptura, but "Solo" Scriptura. I realize there's no Latin for Solo, but I think in the context it's necessary to differentiate the two. So I end up with "Sola" meaning looking at Traditions through the lens of the Scriptures. "Solo" Scriptura is actually a rather untenable position imo. Why? Because in some cases it draws from Tradition (i.e. 2 natures of Christ, Trinity, etc), in others cases, they draw from other ideas, not found in history (i.e. one saved, always saved). It's inconsistent at best, inventive at worst.

I'm still waiting for an answer to this:

What does St Paul tell us is the pillar and bulwark of truth?

A. The Bible alone
B. The theology of Martin Luther
C. The musings of John Calvin
D. The church of the Living God

Just to be fair, I might add Augustine and Tertullian. Augustine taught that un baptized babies were going to hell and Tertullian gleefully talked about watching his critics in hell.

And I heartedly agree with D.

Functionally speaking I find solo versus sola to be a distinction without a difference. No mainstream Christian sect no matter how solo is 100% sans tradition - they all claim the trinity, the full divinity and humanity of Christ, the NT canon, and other broad inheritances of tradition.

So sola vs solo is just drawing the line on where you care to accept tradition. It's not really binary yes tradition vs no. The binary sense is do you accept tradition or not, and as long as the answer is "no" and the reason is "because scripture" you end up in the same place - justifying doctrine by plain reason and scripture. Lots of sects use only plain reason and scripture, and they all disagree. Sola or solo notwithstanding.

dermdoc said:

---

Just to be fair, I might add Augustine and Tertullian. Augustine taught that I baptized babies were going to hell and Tertullian gleefully talked about watching his critics in hell.

And I heartedly agree with D.

---

Nah man...The answer is totally E or F or G.

XUSCR said:

---

I'm still waiting for an answer to this:

What does St Paul tell us is the pillar and bulwark of truth?

A. The Bible alone
B. The theology of Martin Luther
C. The musings of John Calvin
D. The church of the Living God

---

Dr. James White gives the Protestant exegesis answer here:

https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/roman-catholicism/the-catholic-verses-the-pillar-and-foundation/

Quote:

---

There is an important distinction you are missing...The entire Christian Church, both East and West, were in agreement on these Scriptures throughout history leading up to the Reformation. Both Orthodox and Catholic held and hold that the Deuterocanonicals are inspired scripture. It was not until the reformation, with Luther's treatment of them and his statement that they are not equal to Holy Scripture that the Church was compelled to address the issue more formally with Trent. Trent did not decide the issue, Trent just put it officially on the record.

---

This is just logically not true.

Your basic argument is that something was canon even though it was not canon until it was decided it was always canon.

The reformers were content with how things were. The Orthodox were/are content with how things were. Rome was not content and changed it. Without Trent, there's no disagreement between Rome, Orthodox or Lutherans.

Quote:

---

I guess I'm still confused on this because the Church, East and West, has NEVER held or considered the idea of Sola Scriptura so why would or should this novel idea introduced 1500 years into Christianity be considered or discussed?

---

This is now a different argument from you and frankly a false claim. We can see the underpinnings of Sola Scriptura throughout church history. It was not a new or novel idea.

For example:

Jerome Commentary of Haggi - "The sword of God, which is the living Word of God, strikes through the things which men of their own accord, without the authority and testimonies of Scripture, invent and think up, pretending that it is apostolic tradition."


Cyprian - Ad Pompeium - "If the truth has become uncertain in any point, let us return to the origin in the Lord and to the tradition of the Gospels and of the apostles."

Basil - Discourse on Confession - "If the Lord is faithful in all He says, it is clearly a falling from faith and a sin of pride either to reject anything of the things that are written or to add anything unwritten."

Augustine - Contra Cresconium - "I do not hold the letters of Cyprian as canonical, but I evaluate them by the canonical ones; and what of them agrees with the authority of the divine Scriptures I receive with his compliments, but what does not agree I reject with his permission."

So was it novel? Not at all.

Quote:

---

I don't agree. If you are going to throw out the Apostolic Traditions of the Church and their authoritative relationship alongside the Holy Scriptures, to then rely only or supremely on the Scriptures then you cannot avoid defining clearly what the Scriptures are. You can't straddle the fence.

---

No one suggested they "throw out the Apostolic Traditions of the Church." The request as to not do anything!

Quote:

---

In Luther's translation, did he put in the disclaimer that the Apocryphal Books were not equal to Scripture? Yes or No?

---

I don't actually know what he called them beyond the apocrypha. But it was historically accurate.

Quote:

---

Talk about moving the goalposts here. Scripture is Scripture. I don't accept Removal or subjugation of any of it. An assault on any of it is an assault on the church and on the faith.

---

Now you're doing what you accuse me of, avoiding the question.

Why is it that nobody has removed anything from the New Testament? Under your argument, people should be removing NT books because Luther put a "disclaimer." Yet it hasn't happened. Why? It seems there might be a flaw in your argument.

bigcat22 said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

I'm still waiting for an answer to this:

What does St Paul tell us is the pillar and bulwark of truth?

A. The Bible alone
B. The theology of Martin Luther
C. The musings of John Calvin
D. The church of the Living God

---

Dr. James White gives the Protestant exegesis answer here:

https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/roman-catholicism/the-catholic-verses-the-pillar-and-foundation/

---

I am not a Catholic. But a "false gospel and a false hope"? Can not go there.

Lutherans absolutely hold parts of the NT to a second tier, the antilegomena.

http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/preusjaonewtestamentcanon.pdf