What Can Protestants Expect From The New Pope?

Modern Reformation ^ | APRIL, 21, 2005 | Michael S. Horton

[Gamecock]

***you hope to accomplish something serious....

whatever***

serious is as serious does



My 14 year old says it with more heart

[xzins]

troll at 101

[xzins]

troll

[xzins]

games

[Frumanchu]

Normally, one asks the original writer what they meant when people do not understand what is written. If we don't have access to that writer, we would normally ask his followers. This seems normal, don't you think?

Unless the writer was Pelagius or Arminius -their followers obviously took their teachings too far ;)

[P-Marlowe]

So, I submitted a written question - without resorting to a Magesterial argument, how can someone know what the contents of the New Testament canon were? How do we know that James belongs, but the Didache does not? Dr. Geisler hemmed and hawed, and gave an answer about manuscript evidence, but never really answered the question - leaving me with the inescapable conclusion that one of the foremost Protestant apologists of his day didn't have an answer.

The same way we know what the old testament cannon is. God preserved his word using the Jewish heirarchy and he preserved his word using the Catholic Hierarchy. While God's word was preserved by both the Jewish Heirarchy and the Catholic Heirarchy, neither of those heirarchies are or were greater than or superior to the word that has been preserved.

All that God has intended to be included in our Cannon is presently in our cannon.

Or don't you believe that?

[RnMomof7]

He makes a valid point, whether he is "swimming" or not. By attacking the Catholic Church, you merely bite the hand that has given you the Scriptures in the first place. You implicitly trust their decisions on what is Scripture, while discarding the claims made by such Gnostic groups as those who follow the Da Vinci Code and other such nonsense. But WE say the latter is nonsense ONLY because we trust the Catholic Church's table of contents more than the Gnostics. Otherwise, why DO you reject the Gospel of Thomas???

See you think you can make the pope , tradition and the words of the magistrum as valid as scripture because you see scripture as nothing more than another 'work" of the church. When one comes to the word of God as an intellectual pursuit one looks to men for clarification and to have it substantiate a position they already hold.

We believe it was inspired, protected and ordered by the hand of God. It is nothing but arrogance to think A CHURCH gave it to anyone.

The fact is that peter recognized the words of paul as inspired scripture LONG before the cannon was selected and closed by a work of God.

NO ONE comes to the Scriptures without some paradigm or lense that we read it through. Men from different faith traditions read it differently, sometimes diametrically opposed. That's a simple fact.

The question is which comes first the chicken or the egg? I would say that most born again Protestants were saved before they sought to have a greater understanding of the scriptures, their Faith and foundation existed before the study, they did not look to the study to give them faith

[P-Marlowe]

Wbelieve it was inspired, protected and ordered by the hand of God. It is nothing but arrogance to think A CHURCH gave it to anyone.

Amen to that.

[xzins]

Is that a 6 or 12 pounder?

But, you are correct. Once the canon is identified as the word of the apostles, then the church is subservient to it rather than vice versa.

Otherwise, you have no written "constitution" of the church, and abuses such as existed with indulgences can flourish.

We are subject to the authority of Jesus and the apostles. That is clear to me and simple to me.

[AnalogReigns]

I've had Horton as a seminary professor...he's a terrific teacher. Here's a sloppy (SLOPPY) diagram suggested by a professor friend of Dr. Horton's which is in my notes from another seminary course . All the dates aren't right, but the gist of it is that "acceptable" theologies vary at different times...and currently, in spite of the official catechism (the first universal one since Trent) Roman Catholic scholars' opinions are as diverse (or more) than Protestant ones. The RC Catechism is the official doctrine, but it's amazing the diversity found in RC scholarship--going way outside of the catechism. There actually are a few RC scholars who believe in grace alone through faith alone by Christ alone today....and they haven't been excommunicated (or even fired from their University professorships). (of course they are a small minority...)

Anyway, enjoy my lovely art....

A Diagram attempting to show the diversity of Roman and Protestant theologies through time, compared to a theoretical pure Biblical Theology:

[Campion]

See you think you can make the pope , tradition and the words of the magistrum as valid as scripture because you see scripture as nothing more than another 'work" of the church.

Nice try, but that's not Catholic belief. I know you can't justify yourself except by setting up strawmen to knock down, and that's all you're doing here.

It is nothing but arrogance to think A CHURCH gave it to anyone.

It's historical fact that God gave it to you through the undivided Catholic church of the first millennium. If you don't like it, take it up with Martin Luther. He agrees with me.

[Gamecock]

Thanks for sharing that. I love listening to Horton and find his writings very encouraging. Based on your diagram it appears that we need a new Reformation. (But that's what many of us have been saying anyway)

[RnMomof7]

Or, even more intriguing: why is the book of James (to pick a book) canonical, but the Didache or 1Clement not? All are quite orthodox.

Do you know why?

[xzins]

One issue, of course, is that the catholic church of the first few centuries is not the exact parallel of the Roman Catholic church of today.

[jo kus]

Unless the writer was Pelagius or Arminius -their followers obviously took their teachings too far ;)

Of course! Isn't it obvious?!

Regards

[AnalogReigns]

Of course we need a new reformation...but the 16th Century Reformers recognized that reformation is a continual thing. Every generation is 'prone to sin as the sparks fly upward' as Job said.

Our biggest issue, IMHO is to, through the Holy Spirit, convince people there IS absolute truth, and it is found in scriptures objectively, and subjectively in a relationship with Jesus Christ. Post-moderns tend to be very open to religion...as long as you don't posit your religion is objectively true. Getting over that relativist absolute is the biggest barrier.

[jo kus]

The same way we know what the old testament cannon is. God preserved his word using the Jewish heirarchy and he preserved his word using the Catholic Hierarchy.

So you are then agreeing with the claim that the Catholic Church makes - that it ALONE has given mankind the Word of God? Through the Apostles, we have God's Word? So my next question is "WHY?" if you don't trust the Catholic Church? Why do you pick this particular claim, but not the other (that it is the continuation of Christ's Apostolic Church)

All that God has intended to be included in our Cannon is presently in our cannon.

Gnostics made that same claim. So did Marcion. But oddly, your NT matches our NT. So you DO believe that the Catholic Church has presented the Word of God - vs. the Gnostics, etc.

Regards

[jo kus]

See you think you can make the pope , tradition and the words of the magistrum as valid as scripture because you see scripture as nothing more than another 'work" of the church.

I don't remember saying that. I said we believe that the Bible is God's Word BECAUSE of the historical claim made by the Catholic Church is trustworthy - historically speaking. I never said that the Pope or Magesterium is equal to Scriptures...

We believe it was inspired, protected and ordered by the hand of God. It is nothing but arrogance to think A CHURCH gave it to anyone.

WHY do you believe it was inspired, protected, and ordered by God, but NOT the Koran? Or the Hebrew Bible alone? It is ignorance to think that God didn't give His Word to a particular group of men, first called Apostles, then called the Catholic Church, their successors.

The fact is that peter recognized the words of paul as inspired scripture LONG before the cannon was selected and closed by a work of God.

The FACT? We don't even KNOW IF Peter WROTE 2 Peter! The Church mulled on that for some 250 years, deciding it was Scripture, but never officially saying that Peter actually wrote it!

Please do not mistake me. I am not saying that some of Paul's writings were not considered as being from God very early. Paul probably considered his writings as Scripture - but he also considered his ORAL teachings as similarly from God!! But the Bible, as we have it, did not come into being until the late 300's. Before that, there were many opinions on what WAS Scripture, and took an Authoritative Body to determine the Table of Contents in an official sense.

I would say that most born again Protestants were saved before they sought to have a greater understanding of the scriptures, their Faith and foundation existed before the study, they did not look to the study to give them faith

Without questioning what "saved" means, I would agree that you are merely EMPHASIZING my point of view! It is not necessarily the Bible, but God working through other people, that generally brings people to Him in the first place. We don't take the Bible off the shelf and convert ourselves, based on its internal writings. We accept the witness of other Christians on the effect of the Bible in their lives.

Regards

[xzins]

I understand that at the time of Gutenberg there was a church theological who declared that putting the scriptures in the hands of common folk would be like throwing pearls before swine.

Until Gutenberg, the scriptures were no threat to the abuses that had developed in the Catholic system. That is why there was no problem with the integrity of the scripture being adequately preserved.

Not only were they the sole interpreters of the scripture, they were the sole possessors (in large part) of the scripture.

The era of the church in which the canon was agreed upon was substantially different than the medieval church which brought about such extensive abuse. It was not, imho, the Roman Catholic Church.

It was The Church. Besides, once the scripture is identified as being the word of Christ and the apostles, then the church becomes subject to them and not vice versa.