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?
Can you explain why you fail to grasp this?
Give his links a closer reading. The authorities cited are commenting on comments made surrounding the Council. Comments surrounding the Council are historic and valuable, but have no binding teaching authority.
I cited the primary text, the actual text of the Council of Trent, which is unambiguous regarding the Canon of Scripture. It is this text which the Church regards as infallible teaching.
But all of this begs the question, What authority did Luther have to determine the canon of Scripture? Can his canon be disputed? And if so, how can "the Bible alone" be the "sole rule of faith," if the canon of Scripture is controvertible?
Because Peter was given the rule [prostasia] over the brethren, some might wonder why he did not automatically become head of the church in Jerusalem. Says Chrysostom: "If anyone should say, 'Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?' I should reply that he [Christ] made Peter the teacher not of that See, but of the world." Ibid. 81. In other words, says Chrysostom, after Peter's fall (his denial of Christ), Christ "brought him back to his former honor and entrusted him with the headship [epistasia] of the universal Church." [Ibid., 80.]If one reads Acts 15 without noting Acts 10, one can make a big mistake. In Acts 10
34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. 36 You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. 37 You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.Note -- Peter already took the decision to baptise gentiles
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues[b] and praising God. Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.
Does the New Testament describe a collection of buildings and rituals ruled by a hierarchy of sinners as being somehow automatically filled with the Holy Spirit, ever? No, it doesn’t.
To the extent that those within the Church are indwelled with the Holy Spirit, then the instiution is also by virtue of their presence. If not, then not. Surely a dispassionate reading of church history will reveal this to you, within the Roman Catholic Church or any other.
The “Protestant” Reformation did not arise in one place, it welled up across Europe and the British Isles over a period of decades, more or less. Do you suppose they all just decided randomly to risk their very lives to speak out for Christianity, or perhaps was it that the “magisterium” had gone seriously astray and various groups of Christians in various locales recognized that truth and were willing to become martyrs in order to set things aright?
I have Catholics in my acquaintance who have quietly and privately expressed gratitude for the Reformation. It was needed. Any student of history, church or secular, should be able to see this.
Isaiah 22:22What's up with the keys? In the ancient Davidic Kingdom (Isaiah 22:22), the vice-regent or primeminister wore an over-sized key around his neck, symbolizing his full plenary authority in the king's abscence.I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
Matthew 16:19
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Revelation 3:7
“To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open."
Jesus, as the eternal King of the New Davidic Kingdom (Rev 3:7), was aware of this when he gave the keys of the vice-regency of the New Davidic Kingdom to Peter.
The biblical canon was set long before Luther. The only book he questioned was James because of its emphasis on works, but as we know, he relented.
If we look closely at verse 18 we can see that Jesus is addressing Peter in the 2nd Person “..you” followed by His addressing of the rock on which He will build His church in the 3rd Person. So what does “this” refer to? Could it be that He is referring to Peter? If so, then why the 3rd Person wording? Or could it be that He is referring to Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God? This second way the verse can be interpreted seems quite legitimate considering the whole reason Jesus was there, to die on the cross for our sins as God incarnate. Jesus didn’t bring any new revelation accept that of His identity and purpose. All the rest of his teachings could be found in the Old Testament. He just clarified or restated it. Who Jesus is, is a critical part of the New Testament message, a foundational part. And it could very well be that the rock/foundation that Jesus is building His Church upon is this belief/knowledge that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God i.e. His identity.
The nature of the passage seems inherently ambiguous. While this passage can be taken in a Roman Catholic sense, it can also be taken in a Protestant sense, which to me, is the better way of taking it because it fits better within the framework of Holy Scripture.
The Papal structure of authority rests on this verse. Even if we grant that Jesus was referring to Peter here, the Papal structure that follows is not there. The whole Roman Catholic Project could be viewed like a huge upside down pyramid with its point resting on this one ambiguous verse. I think that being dogmatic about this verse being the central verse that authenticates and verifies the entire enterprise makes their case very weak.
So where does the Papal structure of authority come from? Where does the idea that Jesus came here to set up an organization come from? Rome points to the keys and the binding authority given in verse 19. The problem with the binding authority being given only to Peter is that Jesus also gives this binding authority to all His disciples in Matt 18:18. A closer look at the original Greek of these 2 verses results in a more forceful translation which can be found in a few Bible translations. The more forceful translation would be “whatever you bind on earth must have been bound in heaven” indicating that whatever Peter and the disciples do or say has already been cemented in Gods truth. No new or contradicting information is allowed for. So a future Pope proclaiming something contradicting an earlier revelation flies in the face of these verses. Especially after what Paul says in Gal 1:8-9.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
He eliminated books from the OT. I know that some Protestants will argue that Catholics added them. But regardless, Why is his fallible canon anymore acceptable than the presumably fallible Catholic canon? And if his canon is fallible, then his theory of "the Bible alone" would be incoherent, since what books constitute the Bible would be controvertible.
“I think that being dogmatic about this verse being the central verse that authenticates and verifies the entire enterprise makes their case very weak.”
AMEN. I would expand only to say that it makes it crumble. :D
Hoss.
I’m a Catholic who would agree that some good things came from the Reformation. I also think it was a good thing that the Vatican lost its power as a secular state occupying a lot of land. It really freed the Church to focus on the things of God.
What I would say now, though, is that it’s been a few hundred years of separation. Isn’t it time to figure out how to be a connected Christian family again?
If one accepts Luther’s canon, then one has certainly accepted Luther’s infallibility and authority, i.e. a pope.
What I believe Protestants fail to grasp is that the Catholic church is not static and within its ranks there is still debate and dissension. There has been since the beginning.
What that means is that Catholics often wander off the reservation and into territory that is heretical, but until and unless a doctrine is declared as binding it is not an official.
For example there is still debate on the ordination of women, but JPII has declared that the Church has no authority to change what Jesus sanctioned and instituted, namely a priesthood of men. Therefore, the debate may rage on and “Catholics” may dissent from the doctrine, that dissent keeps them from full communion with the Church, i.e. heretics.
Scripture Canon has been defined and reaffirmed by the Church. Catholics who wish to be in communion with the Church must accept that.
Now, many will use the early Fathers and Doctors to support their protestantism, saying well Jerome said this and Augustine said that. But, neither, in fact, none of them, were pope and had not the authority, the keys, as given to Peter and passed to his successors, to bind or loose.
That is the beauty of the Church, that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, she sifts all theologies and in so doing, separates the chaff from the wheat. That is why we Catholics can trust what she doctrines declares as Truth.
“Jesus, as the eternal King of the New Davidic Kingdom (Rev 3:7), was aware of this when he gave the keys of the vice-regency of the New Davidic Kingdom to Peter.”
Uh, no.
Hoss
Yes. Martin Luther didn’t decide the current NT canon. It was decided much much earlier.
If one declines to accept as canon that which is of questionable provenance, one is in the company of numerous early Church fathers as well as quite a few figures within the Church right up to the Council Of Trent.
This is no more "Luther's Canon" than it is "Jerome's Canon." The Protestant Canon is that which is incontrovertibly scripture, relying upon authority going back to the early church and even before to rabbinical sources. The Catholic Canon has become "because we say so" despite the matter being left open theologically by the aforementioned Council.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by Catholic. Are you talking Roman Catholic, or the entire orthodox church in Christendom?
As long as you don’t try to assert the primary of Rome, I’m ok with that. There is as much disagreement within the orthodox churches as their is between them and Protestantism.
Using your own argument.
Does the New Testament describe a collection of buildings and rituals ruled by a hierarchy of sinners as being somehow automatically filled with the Holy Spirit, ever? No, it doesn’t.
The reformation began with a single event, the nailing to the door of his 99(?)theses by Luther. The underpinnings may have existed prior but that action by Luther was the catalyst. From that event arose thousands of different denominations and sects all which have their own buildings and hierarchy and doctrine and are filled with and led by sinners. Do you think this was Luther’s intent? Or that he could have foreseen this?
Is Luther the same as Jesus? I ask this because, though Luther could not have foreseen the consequences of his words and actions, Jesus most certainly could.
Knowing this, why does Jesus not make His intent clearer?
Knowing the consequences of His words would be a Church, one that claims for itself authority by virtue of Jesus’ words to Peter, why didn’t Jesus make certain that what He meant was as clear as could be and easily grasped by His followers of the time?
I submit that Jesus’ words were very clear and quite understood by the followers and what came from those words, and all the others found in the NT is the organic Church we have today.
I’ll think it over. Off-hand, though, I’m not sure the USA would have happened were it not for the worldview of English Protestant founders of our democratic republic. Whether that outweighs the harm done by the intellectual history of Protestant Europe, I’m going to earnestly ponder.
Then you have just admitted that there is no way a Christian can be sure what is Scripture. The logical next step therefore is that there is no way a Christian can accept anything as inerrant and inspired by God. The next logical step is that there is there is no way a Christian can know what is Truth. The next logical step is that there is no knowable Truth, only that which each person left to their own interpretation and conscience accepts as truth, i.e. truth is relative.
In having no assure authority, we have come to where we are now, with Christians accepting abortion and gay marriage. All predictable results of the morass of theologies, ideologies and doctrines as seen in protestantism.
The Catholic understanding of papal authority hardly rests on one passage.
No time to elaborate since I am off to church:)
Hopefully, I will be able to add more later.
Your history is not at all complete, but by all means let's pretend it began with Luther in order to kill the messenger and ignore the message.
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.