Posted on 01/23/2011 5:12:54 AM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas
Did Martin Luther Act Infallibly in Defining What Books Belong in the Bible?
If Luther did not act infallibly:
- How can Protestants be certain that they have an infallible collection of Books in Holy Scripture?
- How can the Bible be the sole rule of faith, if no one knows with certainty which books belong in the Bible?
If Luther acted infallibly:
- How do you know?
Martin Luther began his religious life as a Catholic Monk. What happened? What caused his dissastisfaction with The Catholic Church?
Here's another request for a more extensive explication of this rather smug statement.
What authority did Luther have to reject the canon of Scripture that was in use by all Christians in his day? "The Bible alone"? Doesn't that seem contradictory?
Just trying to keep the thread on track.
(Selling of Indulgences Q&A. See the bottom of the page.)
The fundamental misperception here is that the Protestant Reformers rejected the entirety of the church and sought to begin with some sort of clean slate to invent a new form of Christianity. They didn't. They sought to return to first principles, believing with some justification that the excesses of the Papacy and the priesthood in general that had built up over the centuries were straying from Christianity.
There is in fact support for these contentions. There had been reform movements in the past that didn't result in schism and breaking with Rome. What was different about this one? The priesthood and the Papacy itself was brought under scrutiny, that's what was different.
I have a question for you: you've asked several times if the Protestant canon is infallibly determined. I want to see you admit that those books within that canon are infallibly determined.
Can you do that? Just write "The books of the Protestant canon are infallibly determined." Easy enough to do. Surely you don't contest the canonicity of these books, do you? After all, they're the same books you accept yourself.
If you want to continue with the bluff and bluster about the Deutercanonical books, there is an answer for that, with which I'm certain you're familiar. These books were contained in the earliest Protestant Bibles and in many instances continue to be. However, their acceptance as canon was not clear at all and still is not; protest all you want but this is the truth.
ahem, no the Catholic Church is a creation of man. The Church is built upon the infallible Word of God, the Bible.
For if the Bible is not the infallible word of God, but a creation of man, who decides what is Gods word and what is mans word?
The doctrine of all denominations is but a creation of imperfect men with an imperfect understanding of God. In some cases it is written not to further Gods kingdom but to further the power and lusts of the flesh.
A king has the blind men of the capital brought to the palace, where an elephant is brought in and they are asked to describe it.
“When the blind men had each felt a part of the elephant, the king went to each of them and said to each: ‘Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?”
The men assert the elephant is either like a pot (the blind man who felt the elephants’ head), a winnowing basket (ear), a plowshare (tusk), a plow (trunk), a granary (body), a pillar (foot), a mortar (back), a pestle (tail) or a brush (tip of the tail).
The men cannot agree with one another and come to blows over the question of what it is like and their dispute delights the king. The Buddha ends the story by comparing the blind men to preachers and scholars who are blind and ignorant and hold to their own views: “Just so are these preachers and scholars holding various views blind and unseeing.... In their ignorance they are by nature quarrelsome, wrangling, and disputatious, each maintaining reality is thus and thus.” The Buddha then speaks the following verse:
O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim
For preacher and monk the honored name!
For, quarreling, each to his view they cling.
Such folk see only one side of a thing.
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, creator of all things seen and unseen.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, light from light, true God from true God.
Begotten not made, of one being with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven.
And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; He was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and on the third day rose again according to the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, and His Kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spoke through the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."
Personally, I would eliminate the Religion forum altogether.
Conservatives look stupid when we beat each other up with the “I’m better than you” crap.
So its your position that the Bible is incomplete and fallible?
“Is the Protestant canon infallibly determined? How do you know? Who acted infallibly in determining it?”
If you read the link I provided, it will answer your questions. The problem is that your view is shaped by a hierarchical church, so you are looking for some church authority that will tell you ‘infallibly’ what the canon is.
In the age of Luther, it was still permissible for Catholic theologians to debate the extent of scripture, and if parts were OK for public reading but not for doctrine.
Protestants continue and expand on that freedom, and believe that the canon is revealed by the Holy Spirit to His church. We reject the Apocrypha because it was written prior to Jesus, and we see no sign that either Jesus or the Apostles considered it authoritative. And in fact, the Catholic Church doesn’t necessarily believe the Apocrypha is acceptable for doctrine, although scripture itself teaches that if it isn’t acceptable for doctrine, then it isn’t scripture...
What did Jerome think of the Apocrypha?
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/guest-blogdid-jerome-change-his-mind.html
Is the Apocrypha good for teaching doctrine?
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/02/semi-authoritative-catholic-canon.html
“The majority agreed with the opinion of the general of the Servites, that controverted theological questions, which had already been the subject of discussion between Augustine and Jerome, should not be decided by the Council but should be allowed to remain open questions. The result of the above-mentioned vote of the general congregation of 15 February committed the Council to the wider canon, but inasmuch as it abstained from a theological discussion, the question of differences between books within the canon was left as it had been.” History of the Council of Trent, pgs 56-57”
“The Catholic Church wrote, preserved and canonized the Bible that was in existence in Luther’s day. This is a matter of historic fact.”
You know, that’s a strange set of facts you have there. And if you truly believe that the Roman Catholic Church *wrote* the Bible, you’ve got problems. BIG problems.
2 Timothy 3:16-18:
“16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”
‘breathed out by God....’ — get it?
The Roman Catholic Church *wrote* nothing. Manuscripts, written by those men filled with the Holy Spirit, may have been *copied* — but, that’s it.
So much for your historical facts.
Hoss
Respectfully, MamaB, you make sense. Please keep in mind, with regard to the 1st Council of Nicea, that there were no protestant groups of any kind. It was not exclusionary in that context. It was held in order to combat Arianism, the heresy which denied the divinity of Christ. This thread is actually about canon.
I have heard this argument many times and believe it is sincere. As a fallen away Catholic Christian (rejecting all religion and living as a very skeptical agnostic)when I began to yearn again for Christ in my life, I seriously considered and weighed my options.
This argument made sense and made my decision to return to the Church a difficult one.
But, I began to realize that when one honestly considered this argument, there was an extreme flaw in it.
Simply put, if I can accept the “first principles” and the doctrines of the early councils as having been declared by the Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, at what time do I also accept that the same Holy Spirit abandoned the Church?
It then made no sense to me. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit, he promised that His Church would survive the gates of Hell. Why then and when did He withdraw the Holy Spirit?
That question drove me nuts and hampered my Christianity as I wanted Truth, not just religion.
I found my answer in the Truth that I believe the original post of this thread represents.
Luther did not foresee what he wrought. His canon is the one accepted by Protestants, unless I am unaware of different ones accepted by other denominations.
That would mean that all Protestants accepting as canon Luther’s choices of what to keep and what to discard is a de facto of his infallibility.
Thus that stumbling block was overcome for me and returning to the Church was the only thing that made sense.
OK, the Holy Spirit is telling me that the Catholic canon of Scripture is the true canon.
Now what?
And what do you say to a Mormon who believes in the inspiration of the Book of Mormon?
The books of the Protestant canon are infallibly determined.
How's that?
But what does that prove?
The question at hand is, Did Luther have the authority to determine the Protestant canon of Scripture? (Specifically, the authority to remove books from the accepted canon of Scripture in his day.)
Did he act infallibly when he removed books from the Bible?
Can you say, "Luther is not infallible, and we cannot be certain that he acted infallibly when determining his canon of Scripture?"
Please take this in the spirit in which it is given, which is to say not antagonistically; I believe that you, too, love the Lord. The Catholic Church is His creation. It does have fallible men within it. But it is Christ’s bride. It is likewise true that the Holy Bible is the Word of God. But the Church was built by Our Lord. If you have a moment, a better explanation can be found here:
(http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html)
Again, driftdiver, respectfully, I must disagree with you on this. I still wish a Blessed Sunday, though.
Do you think that Catholics don't believe this?
#75 bump. Welcome home.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.