Question for Reformed/Sola Scriptura believers

12,502 Views | 209 Replies | Last: 3 mo ago by Quo Vadis?
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Banned said:

dermdoc said:

10andBOUNCE said:

Just because there are many that insist scripture is the final authority doesn't mean they actually behave in this way. This is why we have dozens and dozens of borderline false teachers out there in churches with tens of thousands of congregants.
Are not those "false teachers" using the same Scriptures your teachers are?

The point is, Scripture can be interpreted by people in a million different ways. To me, that is why the Creeds are so important as a fundamental basic definition of the Christian faith. And the Creeds are tradition and Scripturally based.

I think as Christians we often spend too much time on theology instead of focusing on Jesus. And strange that Jesus accused the Pharisees of the same thing.
John 5 39

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life, and it is they that bear witness about Me.




To be fair, the theology typically comes from challenges to the current authority. If the response was "our teachers said this is the way we should understand the scriptures/morals/liturgy? Ok", then I think there would be a lot less time spent of theology. And prior to the printing press, that's pretty much how it went. The higher ups debated over what the scriptures meant and the rest of us just went along with it.
And not meaning to derail, but that brings me back to the way Calvin changed the theology of election and predestination after 1500 years of teaching and authority.

I mean, I believe Calvin's theology of double predestination is, and should be, a heresy, as it really distorts the character of the traditional Christian God.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Where did the lanes come from? You can't start the story 1600 years after Christ came.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Where did the lanes come from? You can't start the story 1600 years after Christ came.
I can understand the need for ridding corruption in the Catholic Church. I do not see the need to change theology set by the Holy Spirit and consensus. There were always disagreements between Spirit led, Church fathers, which were settled by Councils.

It is like Calvin has been elevated to the sole interpreter of Scripture, based almost totally on Augustine, and the preceding 1500 years did not exist.

I reject that.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

Sorry, no. You don't have to have an infallible authority to have an accepted authority. Pharisees and Sadducees had different canons and as far as I know neither claimed infallibility. But the canon is part of the authority structure of the group that has those particular writings as canon. It's descriptive. If a book functions as scripture for your group it's canon, and that group has an authority structure.

And by necessity you need <<some>> authority structure to even determine what is and isn't going to function as scripture in your community. Some entity, even if diffuse, is going to decide what is read aloud in your meetings.

What doesn't work is having a scripture function as the authority, because you can have multiple authority structures functioning with the same writings. This is a simple observation of fact.

Books don't DO anything. They are inanimate objects. The people who use them make them canonical or not by how they use them.

Protestants making the claim that the scriptures are their authority are making a de facto appeal to authority of the early Church writ large, that whatever scriptures functioned in those churches is canon for them. But at the same time they reject the same authority structure which chose those writings to function as canon. It's nonsensical, and tail-chasing.

Of course protestants appeal to the early church. We are all children of it. The key difference is we do not hold any council or person or group as infallible. We are all human and fallible.

The only infallible item we or anyone can point to is the Scriptures.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Banned said:



This is probably one of the weaker arguments I've seen. Are you really asking how did Jesus (literally God) know what was true in the OT?

The next issue that we run into is that the majority of the OT is historical records. Yes, God moves in several moments in time, but in terms of subject matter, there is far less teaching and much more documentation of events.

Lastly, there was disagreement on what did or didn't belong in Jewish times. If you'd like us to return to a time when we could all disagree about what belongs in the Bible and what doesn't, then authority isn't needed. Do you believe we can challenge if a particular book truly belongs? Even if a "huge portion" was simply widely accepted, that means some wasn't. How do we know those even belong?

Lastly, a "huge portion" of the early church accepted Arianism. A "huge portion" of Christians currently accept contraception. More and more are beginning to accept abortion. I don't really care what a "huge portion" of people accept. Something being widely accepted doesn't make it true. There has to be some authority to determine what is true.

It's not a weak argument, but one Rome does not have an answer to.

Am I saying that Jesus didn't know the Scriptures? No I'm not. What it shows is that only God, and God's Word truly understand the Scripture. Jesus speaking was and is the only infallible interpreter of the Scriptures and He corrected the Pharisees, Sadducees and everyone else.

For Protestants this is not a problem. For Rome this is a major issue. We have clear evidence that:

1. A fallible groups were able to know what was Scripture.
2. This fallible group could not infallible interpret it.

Both claims cut right against the claim that Rome and by proxy the pope can infallible understand the Scriptures.

-------------
When it comes to understanding the Scripture, you'd do well to actually to read a book called Roger Beckwith "The Old Testament Canon in the New Testament Church and it's Background in Early Judaism." It's extremely dense, but gives an incredible overview.

Where there differences? Sure. It was only around the edges of the OT canon though. The books of Moses weren't doubted. The Psalms weren't doubted. The books of the Prophets weren't doubted. In many cases the books themselves were the same, they were simple grouped differently.

Primarily (and I'm going off memory), Ruth was questioned, and the apocrypha wasn't part of the conversation in general.

Simply put, if you look to the Jews as Jerome did, there's really no pathway to the apocrypha.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

Let me phrase my observation about authority in a different way. If the scripture was the actual authority, all the diverse Protestant groups would be in communion with each other. They're not, so it is not. QED.

This is a lazy and retread argument.

Likewise, I could say that "If "Tradition" was the actual authority, all the diverse "Tradition" groups would be in communion with each other."

You and Rome have the exact same problem as any protestant group.
-----------

I'll speak for Lutheranism and simply say this. The issue is never the Scriptures. The issue is always that man, in our fallen state, apply our biases onto Scripture and those biases cause division.

The most obvious example being the Lord's Supper. Calvin, for example, said the "finite cannot contain the infinite." His way of saying that Jesus human body could not be in the Lord's Supper because a human body can only be in one place at one time. Is that a Scriptural point? No, it's a philosophical point.



The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So you "just know" that a fallible group with no final authority knew what was scripture? That's it. You know they could be wrong. They just weren't, and the proof that they weren't is that we believe that they weren't?

Again, this is not an issue for Rome/EO, because it was the authority structure that was capable of determining what was and was not scripture. If the Bible is the ultimate authority, it needs to describe what does and doesn't belong for us to be sure. Tradition and Scripture are co-equal.

And let's not pivot to infallible interpretation when you can't explain how we can infallibly know that the books of the Bible belong in there. In my experience it is Protestants who are much more certain about interpreting scriptures than the Catholic Church. Genesis 1, for example.

ETA for Zobel below: the Catholics are arguing infallibility, not EO. You're having two conversations, so probably a little confusion there.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Of course protestants appeal to the early church. We are all children of it. The key difference is we do not hold any council or person or group as infallible. We are all human and fallible.

The only infallible item we or anyone can point to is the Scriptures.
You didn't address the point. You said that an infallible church was required to know what the scriptures are. That is not correct. You're still talking about infallibility, and I never said anything about it.

Again, you don't have to have an infallible authority, just an accepted authority.

You're accepting the authority of the early church by accepting their canon. You also actively reject the authority of the early church on various topics. You can't have both. Their authority either supersedes yours, which makes the canon authoritative and not subject to change, or it does not. If your current authority structure has sufficient authority to say where they were wrong, that must extend to the question of scripture, which books are to be read aloud in church.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm curious: if the EO bishops got together and removed a book, would that pass muster for you? I know it's a ridiculous hypothetical that would never happen. I'm just interested in what it looks like for a fallible authority to have decided on canon.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

This is a lazy and retread argument.
It's not lazy, its factual. What's lazy is handwaving it away without addressing it.
Quote:

Likewise, I could say that "If "Tradition" was the actual authority, all the diverse "Tradition" groups would be in communion with each other."

You and Rome have the exact same problem as any protestant group.
Yes - that is the point. That is exactly where Rome and Orthodoxy part ways - over different traditions. The communities have a difference in praxis which comes from a difference in tradition, which ultimately resulted in schism. In the end it is a question of authority.
Quote:

I'll speak for Lutheranism and simply say this. The issue is never the Scriptures. The issue is always that man, in our fallen state, apply our biases onto Scripture and those biases cause division.

The most obvious example being the Lord's Supper. Calvin, for example, said the "finite cannot contain the infinite." His way of saying that Jesus human body could not be in the Lord's Supper because a human body can only be in one place at one time. Is that a Scriptural point? No, it's a philosophical point.
Right. Because for both Lutherans and followers of Calvinism their respective traditions have authority over the scriptures, to interpret and apply.

A writing in and of itself has no power whatever. It's an inanimate object. People make that writing function as scripture, function as authoritative within their communities. And people interpret and apply the content of that writing within their communities.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Banned said:

I'm curious: if the EO bishops got together and removed a book, would that pass muster for you? I know it's a ridiculous hypothetical that would never happen. I'm just interested in what it looks like for a fallible authority to have decided on canon.
I wish Revelation was removed. I am a preterist on my interpretation of Revelation but in my opinion it has been open to so much different interpretations that it has distorted solid theology.

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Banned said:

I'm curious: if the EO bishops got together and removed a book, would that pass muster for you? I know it's a ridiculous hypothetical that would never happen. I'm just interested in what it looks like for a fallible authority to have decided on canon.
But there is an infallible authority, which is Christ as the head of the Church, the High Priest. We confess that the Church is infallible, but not any particular person within it. The challenging part is this plays out in time, it's only really identifiable in a concrete way in hindsight. The church may err, but the Church may not persist in error, if that makes sense.

So the real question is, does a bishop or group of bishops have the ability collectively to say that they were wrong for centuries? I don't think so. The Church can't say - we read these scriptures collectively aloud as part of the public teaching, but now we're going to negate that. At this point the question of the canon is no different than the question of the Eucharist or any other dogmatic teaching. Just as St Paul told St Timothy, "and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also." This public teaching is unchangeable.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's more or less not in our canon already.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

It's more or less not in our canon already.


It has been used to make a lot of money (Left Behind comes to mind) and scare a lot of people. And I believe it was actually meant primarily to encourage the churches due to persecution.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
My wife and I joke sometimes about the fact there are a lot of churches today that would be getting letters.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
10andBOUNCE said:

My wife and I joke sometimes about the fact there are a lot of churches today that would be getting letters.


True. But if it was inspired by the Spirit, it would be encouraging. Just like in Revelation.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Banned said:

So you "just know" that a fallible group with no final authority knew what was scripture? That's it. You know they could be wrong. They just weren't, and the proof that they weren't is that we believe that they weren't?

Again, this is not an issue for Rome/EO, because it was the authority structure that was capable of determining what was and was not scripture. If the Bible is the ultimate authority, it needs to describe what does and doesn't belong for us to be sure. Tradition and Scripture are co-equal.

And let's not pivot to infallible interpretation when you can't explain how we can infallibly know that the books of the Bible belong in there. In my experience it is Protestants who are much more certain about interpreting scriptures than the Catholic Church. Genesis 1, for example.

ETA for Zobel below: the Catholics are arguing infallibility, not EO. You're having two conversations, so probably a little confusion there.

Just so I understand your position

Not even the OT was known until Rome came to be? When Jesus quoted the OT, He was merely waiting for Rome to confirm it for Him?

When the OT quote Jewish leaders who looked to the Law of Moses, they were just guessing?

Bold claim.

AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:


Quote:

Of course protestants appeal to the early church. We are all children of it. The key difference is we do not hold any council or person or group as infallible. We are all human and fallible.

The only infallible item we or anyone can point to is the Scriptures.
You didn't address the point. You said that an infallible church was required to know what the scriptures are. That is not correct. You're still talking about infallibility, and I never said anything about it.

Again, you don't have to have an infallible authority, just an accepted authority.

You're accepting the authority of the early church by accepting their canon. You also actively reject the authority of the early church on various topics. You can't have both. Their authority either supersedes yours, which makes the canon authoritative and not subject to change, or it does not. If your current authority structure has sufficient authority to say where they were wrong, that must extend to the question of scripture, which books are to be read aloud in church.

Yawn...For Rome it is a necessity. If your position is the EO doesn't, that's fine.

Earlier in this thread, another EO said, "The Orthodox Church put together a Biblical Canon...."

Honestly, I don't really care because the EO has enough problems being consistent.
------------------------

To your last paragraph though, man you couldn't be more wrong and you/the EO do the exact same thing.

You constantly reject authority within the early church that you disagree with. Again, the very simple example is that Rome claims at least the seeds of the Pope are found in the early church. the EO disagrees and rejects that.

Or we could look to the concept of 7 sacraments that few if any held to.

So on and so forth. You reject a multitude of Fathers when they disagree with you.

The Protestant/Lutheran position is far more consistent than what the EO or Rome will use. We hold that Councils and Fathers are consistent, only when they speak in accord with Scripture.


AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:


Quote:

This is a lazy and retread argument.
It's not lazy, its factual. What's lazy is handwaving it away without addressing it.
Quote:

Likewise, I could say that "If "Tradition" was the actual authority, all the diverse "Tradition" groups would be in communion with each other."

You and Rome have the exact same problem as any protestant group.
Yes - that is the point. That is exactly where Rome and Orthodoxy part ways - over different traditions. The communities have a difference in praxis which comes from a difference in tradition, which ultimately resulted in schism. In the end it is a question of authority.
Quote:

I'll speak for Lutheranism and simply say this. The issue is never the Scriptures. The issue is always that man, in our fallen state, apply our biases onto Scripture and those biases cause division.

The most obvious example being the Lord's Supper. Calvin, for example, said the "finite cannot contain the infinite." His way of saying that Jesus human body could not be in the Lord's Supper because a human body can only be in one place at one time. Is that a Scriptural point? No, it's a philosophical point.
Right. Because for both Lutherans and followers of Calvinism their respective traditions have authority over the scriptures, to interpret and apply.

A writing in and of itself has no power whatever. It's an inanimate object. People make that writing function as scripture, function as authoritative within their communities. And people interpret and apply the content of that writing within their communities.

Nothing was handwaved. The issue isn't the Scriptures. It's never been the Scriptures. The issues since the the fall has been man. The EO and Rome like to pretend there were no splits prior to the Reformation, but that's simply not true.

Man has always found a way to split over theological issues whether it be Protestant or "tradition."

Quote:

Yes - that is the point. That is exactly where Rome and Orthodoxy part ways - over different traditions. The communities have a difference in praxis which comes from a difference in tradition, which ultimately resulted in schism. In the end it is a question of authority.

And here's the problem. You both claim to be looking back to an unwritten tradition. How do you ever know who is right? You don't. At least for Protestants, we can point to the Scriptures and then debate/argue over different interpretations. In yours and Rome's case, you don't even have that. It's honestly kind of gnostic in the approach of pointing to "secret traditions" to justify your claims.

Quote:

Right. Because for both Lutherans and followers of Calvinism their respective traditions have authority over the scriptures, to interpret and apply.

No. This is an incorrect understanding. We have no authority over the Scriptures. We do our best to interpret them and be faithful to them, but claim no authority over them.

Do I believe Lutherans have the correct interpretation, or at least the most correct? Yes of course, but that's not because we bring authority over it. Instead we argue that Scripture interprets Scripture and that other groups turn to other methods of interpreting.

You mentioned Calvin, and I've used this example before that Calvin did not want to accept the text as is around the Lord's Supper. In his own words, "the finite cannot contain the infinite." Is that a Scriptural point? Is that a historical point? I'd argue no to both, it's a philosophical point that he felt was necessary to lay over the Scriptures.

So is my debate with Calvin over Scripture? No. It's over the usage of philosophy on the Scriptures to add or change the meaning of the text. Honestly, it's more or less the same argument with Rome. Transubstitution is a philosophical understanding and not a Scriptural understanding. I agree it's more in alignment with the text, but goes too far.

So the argument still stands. Man has caused division since the fall in the Garden. The Reformers were not the first, nor the last to split, and to lay the blame at our feet is to misunderstand history.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Your example that we disagree with "the early church" because we disagree with Rome on the matter of papal supremacy?? Is Rome the early church? Does that mean you agree with Rome that they (as the early church) formed the canon?

7 sacraments? I'm not sure what you're talking about, to be honest. This isn't a point of contention as far as I know. When Patriarch Jeremias wrote in dialogue with the Lutherans in the 1500s he observed that there are at least seven. The later confession of Dositheus, Patriarch of Jersualem was penned kind of in response to the confession of Cyril Lucaris, says that there are seven: baptism, confirmation in the form of chrismation, priesthood, the Eucharist, marriage, confession, and chrismation. But I think this kind of formulation is best understood as dialogue with the West, speaking into a Western framework which has a very different understanding of the receipt grace and the Holy Mysteries. For us, the mysteries are the activities or working (energeia) of God. To refute this in the fathers you would have to find a writing that says marriage is not a work of the Spirit or a mystery -- contra St Paul; that there is no activity of God in chrismation as spoken of by St James and St Mark; that the Lord does not work in confession speaking against St John and St James, and so forth.

These kind of discussions are always so revealing to me, that the theological framework of the debate between Protestants and Rome simply cannot be mapped 1:1 onto the framework of Orthodoxy. Which is precisely why there was so much consternation between East and West in the Renaissance... the West wanted precision, to answer the questions of the West influenced by scholasticism in a way that was foreign to the East. When theologians from the East adopted that Western framework, e.g. Cyril Lucaris, by doing so they produced something somewhat foreign to the tradition of the East. Even the Council of Jerusalem has specific latinophrony precisely because it was written to address Calivinism. In the end there is a sharp distinction between the cataphatic scholasticism of the West and the apophatic tradition of the East.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

And here's the problem. You both claim to be looking back to an unwritten tradition. How do you ever know who is right? You don't. At least for Protestants, we can point to the Scriptures and then debate/argue over different interpretations. In yours and Rome's case, you don't even have that. It's honestly kind of gnostic in the approach of pointing to "secret traditions" to justify your claims.
My friend, you would do well to stick to talking about your own confessions. The Orthodox do not make a claim to "unwritten" tradition. The tradition of the Church is fully contained in the public teaching and ministry of the Church. In other words, you don't know what you're talking about, which is why you err.


Quote:

Do I believe Lutherans have the correct interpretation, or at least the most correct? Yes of course, but that's not because we bring authority over it. Instead we argue that Scripture interprets Scripture and that other groups turn to other methods of interpreting.

This is saying the same thing without saying it. Calvinism is also a sola scriptura tradition, as are the Baptists. You don't like saying you have authority over the scripture, but you certainly claim authority to interpret it - as do the Calvinists and Baptists.

The point is that scripture can't interpret itself. NO sola scriptura group would agree with you that they're interpreting the scripture incorrectly or "using philosophy" to add or change the meaning of the text. So you're back at square one, which is why you remain in schism, and why the Protestant movement can only add schism to schism.

But this was all a nice digression away from the point at hand. Where'd you get the canon from at all?

At time zero there was no canon. At the time of the Reformation there was. Someone had to have authority over the text to sift scripture from not. Who was that? For what it is worth, it is perfectly fine to say "the Church writ large" - it doesn't have to be any one person or even any one group.
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It is my understanding that by about the year 90 AD the Church more or less had canonical scripture available to them. I believe 22 of the 27 books were agreed upon by the Church at that time that they in fact did have the word of God (4 Gospel's and Paul's epistles). Of course, the Council of Carthage officially agreed upon the 27 books as we know them today, but it is not like the Canon was completely up for grabs for 300 years from the time of the Apostles and early Church.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's kind of complicated and anachronistic. "Canonical" means standard, so at the time whatever scriptures those churches were using were canonical for them.

From testimony from patristic writings we can get hints as to which books they quote from authoritatively. From there you can get a pretty good idea of who is using what when. But there are some pitfalls there - just because a church father quotes something doesn't necessarily mean that writing functioned as scripture. A silly example is St Paul quoting Cleanthes, Epimenides, and Menander. I think we can safely say that those aren't scripture and never functioned as scripture. But maybe we have to take a little more seriously St Jude quoting directly from the book of 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. It is possible that 1 Enoch, for example, functioned as scripture in the community St Jude wrote from.

Then you have explicit canonical lists. The earliest New Testament list we have is the Muratorian Fragment from around AD 170. It has the NT, but also includes the Wisdom of Solomon. It says that they have Revelation of St John and St Peter, but "some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church," i.e., it has a disputed place as scripture. It also mentions the Shepherd of Hermas as something to be read, but not in church.

Around the same time you have St Melito of Sardis' list, which includes Wisdom of Solomon, but does not include Esther, and doesn't explicitly list Nehemiah or Lamentations (but they may be included generally within Esdras and Jeremiah).

Then you get Origen in the 200s and then a BUNCH of explicit canonical lists in the 4th century post-Nicaea.

Even so, there's variance in the OT canon across many of these. The book of Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Judith, Tobit, the longer versions of Esther and Daniel, 1-2 Maccabees, and so on.

In the NT you have the solid books which are testified to very early - the four gospels, the Pauline epistles, 1 John, 1 Peter, Hebrews, Acts. Then you have books which were used in some communities and not others - James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation.

The council of Laodicea includes Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah but excludes Revelation. St Augustine in 397 outlines the canon as including Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, 1-2 Maccabees, and the NT we know today.

So... yes, there is clearly a core group of writings that everyone was using very rapidly. That's true both for the OT and the NT. But there was also quite a bit of variance in different groups as to what OT scriptures functioned as canon for them, which took centuries to homogenize and really in some ways never has. Those variance in OT likely came from the variance in usage from the local Jewish communities that were the nuclei of the churches. As for the NT, there were explicitly heretical books, explicitly small-o orthodox books, and some books that were used as scripture in some places but not others. And even now there is one book in limbo status across the whole of Christendom which is Revelation. It is explicitly in the canon in the West, but other than on the island of Patmos at the church of St John is not publicly read as scripture in the East.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgLiving06 said:

The Banned said:

So you "just know" that a fallible group with no final authority knew what was scripture? That's it. You know they could be wrong. They just weren't, and the proof that they weren't is that we believe that they weren't?

Again, this is not an issue for Rome/EO, because it was the authority structure that was capable of determining what was and was not scripture. If the Bible is the ultimate authority, it needs to describe what does and doesn't belong for us to be sure. Tradition and Scripture are co-equal.

And let's not pivot to infallible interpretation when you can't explain how we can infallibly know that the books of the Bible belong in there. In my experience it is Protestants who are much more certain about interpreting scriptures than the Catholic Church. Genesis 1, for example.

ETA for Zobel below: the Catholics are arguing infallibility, not EO. You're having two conversations, so probably a little confusion there.

Just so I understand your position

Not even the OT was known until Rome came to be? When Jesus quoted the OT, He was merely waiting for Rome to confirm it for Him?

When the OT quote Jewish leaders who looked to the Law of Moses, they were just guessing?

Bold claim.




Again with the ridiculous "did Jesus need the Church" nonsense. You're the only one saying that and it's disingenuous. I'm not responding to posts like that anymore.

According to modern scholarship, Jewish canon was closed in 150-250 AD. So there has to be a body of people that were checking off on what stays and what goes well after the final book was written. Let's say it's only 10% of the OT. If I were Jewish, how could I know they picked they right ones? What if 2% is wrong? Or 2% more should have been included?

The Catholic Church determined their canon a couple hundred years later. How can we know they picked the right ones? Same issue

Luther made some changes over 1000 years later. How can we know he chose the right ones? Same issue.

His Protestant offspring completely removed the deuterocanonical books not long after. Were they right to do so? Or was Luther's middle ground correct? Or were the bishops over 1000 years before him correct?

You can say tradition is a helpful compliment or whatever, but unless that tradition has the AUTHORITY to determine what is and is not scripture, then I am free to question what material does or does not belong in there, just like Luther did. Why would I not be free to say that scripture is the ultimate authority but such and such passage doesn't belong in there? Recent scholarship suggests several Pauline epistles weren't written by Paul. Luther didn't know that, but we do. Why can't I toss them? Luther toyed with the canon. Now most Protestant denominations have gotten rid of the deuterocanonical books altogether. I know he never fully removed any, but it very clear he believed he had the authority to determine which scriptures were lesser versus greater, and the fruits of his work removed some altogether.

In your framework, we have no way of knowing who is right and who is wrong. You take scripture as some sort of brute fact, but scripture very clearly does not tell us which books do and do not belong. It's either a judgement call for each individual/church group OR that job belings to a divinely inspired Church (or Levitical lineage for Jews) that has the authority to do so. So my primary question still stands: by what authority do I know for certain that I can't remove the deuterocanonical books or even the book of James (as Luther so hotly detested)? If tradition is merely helpful in matters of interpretation of scripture, I see no reason to elevate it to some special status in determination of what scripture is. If tradition can tell us beyond a shadow of a doubt what belongs when the Bible itself does not, then you clearly have a second authority outside of the Bible. And if that authority has the ability to determine what is IN the Bible, how can it not authoritatively determine what the biblical texts mean?
Jabin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How do you know that the RCC was right in the books it chose to be in the Canon?
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jabin said:

How do you know that the RCC was right in the books it chose to be in the Canon?


I put my faith in the Church Christ established, led by the Holy Spirit, to handle those matters. Other Christians trust their respective histories to arrive at their canon. One thing we can all know with certainty is that the Bible never tells us which books belong and which ones don't, so either we should all have some uncertainty with the Bible, or we don't believe the Bible alone to be authoritative.
one MEEN Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
There is some nitty grittiness here that I think loses sight of what scripture actually is. Its divinely inspired writings that are historically written, kept, interpreted, and handed down by either the old testament priest class or the early church church fathers/priests. It is writings about God from men about God's relationship and history with mankind. They are the crown jewel tradition of the church of whom the churches highest goal is to bring about mankind's salvation. A written tradition that cannot have been kept without the physical faith practices of the Abrahamic line, the age of Israel, and the church established by Christ. It was not a book buried and then dug up centuries later. The sum total of 'church life' feeds into and out of the scripture. They work together to inform you about Gods relationship with man, and the Messiah and how you are to live your life to be constantly climbing jacobs ladder.

That is why you see the Orthodox church not wade into the canon discussions beyond 'books to be read at church, books to be read at home, books not to be read.'

Go ahead and read first Enoch, the testament of the twelve patriarchs, the harrowing of hades, etc. These books are all great to read at home, learn more about the faith, the history and fullness of the faith and the struggles of their times. But don't neglect to understand the basics of mankind outlined in Genesis, or the struggles of the nation of Israel to follow God in 1-4th Kingdoms, or the prophecies of the Messiah in prophets and psalms, or the mission of Jesus and the letters of how He is the perfect and final sacrifice and how that is the Eucharist. Things that have never been on any chopping block of misguided canon list. And how all of that tracks in with you increasing your prayer, fasting, and almsgiving, repentance, forgiveness, participating in communion, and the seasons of the liturgical calendar.
Jabin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another perspective is that the books of the Bible are self-authenticating, just like Christ himself was self-authenticating. Christ did not need the seal of approval from the church to verify that he was the son of God and that his words were perfect. Similarly, the inspired written words from the Holy Spirit do not need a seal of approval from any church.

The RCC seems to have a circular argument. It appears to derive its authority and the role of Peter from the words of the scripture. However, it claims that scripture derives its authority from the church.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jabin said:

Another perspective is that the books of the Bible are self-authenticating, just like Christ himself was self-authenticating. Christ did not need the seal of approval from the church to verify that he was the son of God and that his words were perfect. Similarly, the inspired written words from the Holy Spirit do not need a seal of approval from any church.

The RCC seems to have a circular argument. It appears to derive its authority and the role of Peter from the words of the scripture. However, it claims that scripture derives its authority from the church.


Christ is God. Is the Bible God? I've never seen anyone, Protestant or Catholic, claim the Bible is equal to God. It cannot self authenticate because it is not a being/person. It is the early Church who told you which of these were inspired by the Holy Spirit and which ones weren't.

Speaking of Jesus, He never commanded anyone to write anything down. He commanded His apostles to teach. That's what they did. Some of their teaching happened to be written, hence we have a NT. Why was their spoken word not as authoritative as their written word?

Your last paragraph is off by a bit. The Catholic Church teaches that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are co-equals. Tradition gave us scripture and scripture preserves and guides our tradition.

It's not a perfect analogy, but it's kind of like our country. The founders imparted authority into our constitution. Our constitution then guided the founders. They go together.

The difference in the Church is that both the Church and Scripture are divinely inspired so its teachings are not a purely human institution like our country is.
Jabin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

It cannot self authenticate because it is not a being/person.
That's a conclusion, not an argument or reason. Why do you state that only a "being/person" can self-authenticate? Can't God have anything He wants to be self-authenticating? Don't you believe that the 10 commandments were self-authenticating?

Quote:

It is the early Church who told you which of these were inspired by the Holy Spirit and which ones weren't.
Not true. The Holy Spirit tells us which books are inspired, and there are multiple arguments/evidences that support the testimony of the HS. The writings of the early Church fathers are one line of evidence, but not decisive alone.

Quote:

Speaking of Jesus, He never commanded anyone to write anything down. He commanded His apostles to teach. That's what they did. Some of their teaching happened to be written, hence we have a NT. Why was their spoken word not as authoritative as their written word?
I don't understand your point. Who is asserting that their spoken words were not authoritative? I've never even considered the question, but off-the-cuff I'd say that their spoken words may have been decisive when inspired by the Holy Spirit, but not otherwise.

Quote:

Your last paragraph is off by a bit. The Catholic Church teaches that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are co-equals. Tradition gave us scripture and scripture preserves and guides our tradition.
What is your basis for believing that the RCC has any authority whatsoever? It would seem that your only two choices are simply arbitrary blind faith or the Scriptures.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
God self authenticates because He isn't contingent. He just is. Always has been and always will be. He depends on nothing. The Bible does not reach this level because it came to be in a specific timeline through human authors, guided by the Holy Spirit.

How and when did the Holy Spirit tells us which documents were true and which ones weren't? Through which medium did He teach this? When and how did He say Luke belongs but the gospel of Thomas does not?

Their spoken word is Tradition. And as you say, when they chose to speak on a subject after seeking the Holy Spirit, their words were just as authoritative. We believe that lives on in the Church. I guess you'd have to believe that just ceased and the Church was left to a body of believers and their own opinions. So the problem with the Bible not specifically saying which books belong means you had to rely on the words of someone in order to determine what belonged and what didn't. You literally just have to look at the deuterocanonical books to see that someone is right and someone is wrong. Who gets to decide? Where did the Holy Spirit specifically weigh in on this?

I believe in the Church because the Church came years before scripture. The Church gave us scriptures. So I can trust scriptures BECAUSE the Church said they are scriptures. The Church references scripture to show Church authority because we're arguing with people who say "IT HAS TO BE IN THE BIBLE!!!" We can equally use history, church fathers and common sense, but that doesn't hold any weight for folks on your side of the argument so we use what you will listen to.

Again they go hand in hand. Our constitution needed the founders. But once it was written, the founders had to abide by the constitution. Had the founders not said "here are our rules" then it's meaningless paper. If the paper ceased to exist, our country would have chaos, no different than a church without scripture.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:


Quote:

And here's the problem. You both claim to be looking back to an unwritten tradition. How do you ever know who is right? You don't. At least for Protestants, we can point to the Scriptures and then debate/argue over different interpretations. In yours and Rome's case, you don't even have that. It's honestly kind of gnostic in the approach of pointing to "secret traditions" to justify your claims.
My friend, you would do well to stick to talking about your own confessions. The Orthodox do not make a claim to "unwritten" tradition. The tradition of the Church is fully contained in the public teaching and ministry of the Church. In other words, you don't know what you're talking about, which is why you err.


Quote:

Do I believe Lutherans have the correct interpretation, or at least the most correct? Yes of course, but that's not because we bring authority over it. Instead we argue that Scripture interprets Scripture and that other groups turn to other methods of interpreting.

This is saying the same thing without saying it. Calvinism is also a sola scriptura tradition, as are the Baptists. You don't like saying you have authority over the scripture, but you certainly claim authority to interpret it - as do the Calvinists and Baptists.

The point is that scripture can't interpret itself. NO sola scriptura group would agree with you that they're interpreting the scripture incorrectly or "using philosophy" to add or change the meaning of the text. So you're back at square one, which is why you remain in schism, and why the Protestant movement can only add schism to schism.

But this was all a nice digression away from the point at hand. Where'd you get the canon from at all?

At time zero there was no canon. At the time of the Reformation there was. Someone had to have authority over the text to sift scripture from not. Who was that? For what it is worth, it is perfectly fine to say "the Church writ large" - it doesn't have to be any one person or even any one group.

Yawn. Play whatever word games you'd like. We both know that the EO claims traditions outside of Scripture.

------------
You might want to heed your own claimed advice though. You claim I don't understand the EO, and then show you don't understand Protestantism. I know you'll claim that somehow having been historically a protestant you are wise to it, but you show a simple lack of understanding.

I'll make it simple.

Just as Rome and the EO claim to be the tradition of the ancient church, many claim to be sola scriptura.

In all cases, regardless of claim, there are differences. So sola scriptura nor whatever you want to claim your tradition is are ever the problem. The problem always falls to man and our ability to disagree.

But further your point on scripture interpreting itself is wrong. As I pointed out, which you ignored, the issue is never the Scriptures. How can it be? The Scriptures are infallible and from God. It comes down to man in our sinful nature and our inability to fully comprehend them. No claim of authority, as you and Rome will make solves that.

------------------
But where did the canon come from?

The short answer is God. He's the only one capable of producing something.

The long answer is. We see the Old Testament was preserved by the Jews. The Apocryphal books were part of the Jewish canon, and were noted from the start as being

The New Testament can be traced within the early church. It's not some big mystery. That God through divine revelation spoke through the authors of the books is not a mystery.I can recognize that most of the New Testament (homologoumena) were widely accepted throughout the early church as having been written by the authors that the books claim to have been. There were secondary books that were either doubted, or not as widely read (antilegomena) that were slower in reception, but eventually received by the wider church.

Neither the OT or the NT required an infallible church or council. It's circular reasoning to claim this.

I'm not sure why this is challenging for you?


AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Banned said:

AgLiving06 said:

The Banned said:

So you "just know" that a fallible group with no final authority knew what was scripture? That's it. You know they could be wrong. They just weren't, and the proof that they weren't is that we believe that they weren't?

Again, this is not an issue for Rome/EO, because it was the authority structure that was capable of determining what was and was not scripture. If the Bible is the ultimate authority, it needs to describe what does and doesn't belong for us to be sure. Tradition and Scripture are co-equal.

And let's not pivot to infallible interpretation when you can't explain how we can infallibly know that the books of the Bible belong in there. In my experience it is Protestants who are much more certain about interpreting scriptures than the Catholic Church. Genesis 1, for example.

ETA for Zobel below: the Catholics are arguing infallibility, not EO. You're having two conversations, so probably a little confusion there.

Just so I understand your position

Not even the OT was known until Rome came to be? When Jesus quoted the OT, He was merely waiting for Rome to confirm it for Him?

When the OT quote Jewish leaders who looked to the Law of Moses, they were just guessing?

Bold claim.




Again with the ridiculous "did Jesus need the Church" nonsense. You're the only one saying that and it's disingenuous. I'm not responding to posts like that anymore.

According to modern scholarship, Jewish canon was closed in 150-250 AD. So there has to be a body of people that were checking off on what stays and what goes well after the final book was written. Let's say it's only 10% of the OT. If I were Jewish, how could I know they picked they right ones? What if 2% is wrong? Or 2% more should have been included?

The Catholic Church determined their canon a couple hundred years later. How can we know they picked the right ones? Same issue

Luther made some changes over 1000 years later. How can we know he chose the right ones? Same issue.

His Protestant offspring completely removed the deuterocanonical books not long after. Were they right to do so? Or was Luther's middle ground correct? Or were the bishops over 1000 years before him correct?

You can say tradition is a helpful compliment or whatever, but unless that tradition has the AUTHORITY to determine what is and is not scripture, then I am free to question what material does or does not belong in there, just like Luther did. Why would I not be free to say that scripture is the ultimate authority but such and such passage doesn't belong in there? Recent scholarship suggests several Pauline epistles weren't written by Paul. Luther didn't know that, but we do. Why can't I toss them? Luther toyed with the canon. Now most Protestant denominations have gotten rid of the deuterocanonical books altogether. I know he never fully removed any, but it very clear he believed he had the authority to determine which scriptures were lesser versus greater, and the fruits of his work removed some altogether.

In your framework, we have no way of knowing who is right and who is wrong. You take scripture as some sort of brute fact, but scripture very clearly does not tell us which books do and do not belong. It's either a judgement call for each individual/church group OR that job belings to a divinely inspired Church (or Levitical lineage for Jews) that has the authority to do so. So my primary question still stands: by what authority do I know for certain that I can't remove the deuterocanonical books or even the book of James (as Luther so hotly detested)? If tradition is merely helpful in matters of interpretation of scripture, I see no reason to elevate it to some special status in determination of what scripture is. If tradition can tell us beyond a shadow of a doubt what belongs when the Bible itself does not, then you clearly have a second authority outside of the Bible. And if that authority has the ability to determine what is IN the Bible, how can it not authoritatively determine what the biblical texts mean?

I'm sorry, but your history is just wrong.

First you're avoiding my point, so I'll say it again.

My claim is this:

Premise: No infallible church was necessary for the Old Testament. This is not disputed by anybody.
Conclusion: No infallible church is necessary to determine the New Testament, and therefore there is not a necessity for an infallible Church.

This also haszero historical basis: "The Catholic Church determined their canon a couple hundred years later. How can we know they picked the right ones? Same issue"

It's not true nor has it ever been true.

I do enjoy the claim though because is smacks completely in the face of Zobel claims to show just how dysfunctional it all is. But the simple truth is Rome never determined a canon, and appeals to local councils (a modern invention) do not change that.

-------------------
What's also false is that Luther made changes. He stuck with the same exact canon. He denoted what aligned with the ancient church, but did not remove a single book. If you truly desire a good discussion, stopping with this incorrect line of reasoning would be a good start. The books of the Bible are infallible, not some pretend order (which actually widely varied within the Jewish groups as is).
------------------
Quote:

You can say tradition is a helpful compliment or whatever, but unless that tradition has the AUTHORITY to determine what is and is not scripture, then I am free to question what material does or does not belong in there, just like Luther did. Why would I not be free to say that scripture is the ultimate authority but such and such passage doesn't belong in there? Recent scholarship suggests several Pauline epistles weren't written by Paul. Luther didn't know that, but we do. Why can't I toss them? Luther toyed with the canon. Now most Protestant denominations have gotten rid of the deuterocanonical books altogether. I know he never fully removed any, but it very clear he believed he had the authority to determine which scriptures were lesser versus greater, and the fruits of his work removed some altogether.

This is bad reasoning.

First, you absolutely SHOULD question any and all traditions against Scripture. If it goes against Scripture, you should discard it, if it doesn't.

Second, your reasoning is flawed. Scripture as the only infallible source does not mean I can somehow just dismiss it when I don't like it. Even in Luther's case, while he initially had challenges with James, he came around to quoting it. That we struggle with Scripture, or what it teaches is a reflection of our fallen nature, not of Scripture itself.

Third, recent scholarship does not mean anything with regards to the epistles. Just as scholarship showing that the end of Mark may have been added later aren't a concern. We accept that God has given us is perfect and that while it may have taken us longer to accept something does not change that. Mans flaws don't mean anything as it relates to God's word.

Fourth, the bigger challenge is not the removal of the Apocryphal books, but instead Rome's elevation of them on par with the other books. That's the part that does not align with history. There's no historical basis in Jewish history to support those books as equal canon to the OT, so Luther's denoting them as useful books, even quoting them in sermons, does not mean they should be the basis of doctrine.

The biggest flaw in this is actually Rome's misuse of the word canon and not understanding that the ancient fathers, used canon in various ways...sometimes meaning the true canon of God, which was smaller, and others using canon in a wider sense to mean a multitude of books that may have been read in Church, but not all used in doctrinal discussion.

The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm not avoiding your point. It simply doesn't make sense. The Jews didn't have their canon settled either. They never claimed to have it settled.

Your premise: The OT didn't have an infallible authority, and as such, had an open canon. The core was agreed upon but other books were disputed.
Conclusion: The NT doesn't have an infallible authority, and as such, has an open canon. We can agree to the core of it, but the rest can be disputed.

It's not nearly as good of a comparison as you think it is. In addition, we know the OT had a levitical line of priests. Much like Jesus came to fulfill the law and make it perfect, why is it such a stretch that He perfected the levitical structure into His Church?

As for the rest, I don't see much point in continuing. You insinuate I claim Luther removed books from the canon and then immediately cite where I say "I know he didn't fully remove any". You claim I have my history all wrong while ignoring that certain books were definitely cut by the council process (note: I've never picked THE council), and several that were kept were debated. At the end of the day, you seem to believe that we can know the Bible is for sure correct because we can just know, but I don't see that in Church history. They had discussions as to what should stay and what shouldn't. What's the point of even making cuts or debating to keep certain books when it was obvious all along? And what if they were wrong? We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Believe it or not, I desire unity of all Christians. We've only become more and more divided since the 1500s. If only Jesus would have left someone in charge, you know? That would have made things so much simpler. Point to dissenters inside of the Catholic Church all you want, but we have one teaching that we can point to and know this is the Catholic teaching on matters of faith and morals. We've seen this work out in real time around contraception, abortion, gay marriage, women in liturgy, and a whole host of other issues.

As in all things in our faith, time will tell. I wish you well. I'm sure you sincerely are following Jesus to the best of your conscience and I commend you for that.
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Never forget Sola British and Foreign Bible Society who decided to stop publishing the apocrypha under the authority of St.Adam Smith, I.e to save a few pence; in the early 19th century.

Protestantism: We can't trust church councils; but we can trust publishers.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.