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?
Protestants did and do not follow the Lutheran canon. Luther did not like the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation, but his followers ignored his opinion and included them anyway. He also unsuccessfully tried to get rid of the Book of Esther.
The Protestant canon of today is that of the Hebrew bible, the Masoretic text.
Episcopals are not protestant. - They are just a branch of the Anglican church which is just another schism in the Nicolaitan group (Roman Catholic, Orthodox Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran)
Protestants must reject Nicolaitanism to be protestant.
They have to be called on their heresy, and when they are not, the leaders that failed will have much for which to account.
I’ve rebuked the very liberal Epsicopal Church for their heresies before and I’ll do it again now. Open, unrepentant homosexuals have no place in the clergy of a Christian church of any denomination.
I’ll leave alone for now the fact that the only people who consistently regard Episcopalians and Anglicans as “Protestant” are Catholic. They’re the remnant of another arrogant and corrupt state church, imho, and those believing Christians remaining within them would do well to separate themselves from this and find a more Godly church that is Biblically sound in belief and practice.
Do you deny then that Jimmy Swaggert and Ted Haggard are both back to ministerial positions?
The key word is unrepentant. Do you have some knowledge that these priests are unrepentant?
Did not Jesus say that we are to forgive sin seventy times seven times?
The bishops also must repent of their sin, they are human as well.
If the Church’s position was that there were no wrongs committed, then I might see your point.
You do understand that there are four general branches of the orthodox Christian church and they are not all in communion with each other. The Roman Catholic and Western Syriac churches are generally in communion, the African Coptic and Eastern Syriac (together known as the Oriental) churchs are in communion, the Eastern Orthodox not generally in communion with the others.
They are separated by doctrinal and other differences going back to the time of the Roman empire, mostly due to differences in view of Christology. They also don’t even agree amongst themselves as to canon. I’m still not quite sure where this idea of some kind of universal church authority comes from, because there has been no univerally agreed to authority for centuries.
Perceptions would change drastically if behavior changed. It's a waste of money to try to target the attitudes of non-Catholics while non-Catholics watch the inaction of the church in moral areas.
I do not rely on the infallibility of Rush for my salvation, therefore to use him as an argument is fruitless.
As for the words of Peter regarding Scripture.
Peter speaks here of the fact that the Apostles and others are using the words of the prophets to lay infallible claim that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.
To accept what the Apostles are preaching, one must first accept that Jesus was who they said He is. Their authority is then derived from His. In your own post you admit that there were those who tried to use Scripture to deny the Master, Jesus.
Peter’s words are then prophetic for us as there are still those who would twist Scripture to their own end, to deny the Master and His Church.
>>What was the practical purpose of those men the Apostles chose as leaders?<<
Are you talking about the “fellow servants” who they left as the designated teachers at each of the churches?
Thanks for the ping.
God got His message across on such scores . . . regardless of the dolts He had to use in the process.
Ghandi famously said
“If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today.”
He also said,
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
I don’t believe he was singling out Catholics, but rather all of us since we all fall far short of the glory of God.
Easy, don’t click on the RF button.
Just tell us what right the Catholic church had to add to the OT Canon that had been entrusted to the Jews?
I sees no reference to “fellow servants” but rather elders and overseers.
I say this only in reference to leadership, for I do believe the first work of the church is service.
“The Protestant canon of today is that of the Hebrew bible, the Masoretic text.”
That should read ‘the Old Testament Protestant canon...’
Not very clear there. I’ll sum up: Luther wanted to throw out several books in the New Testament plus Esther in the Old, and that was rejected by Protestants.
Luther also wanted to throw out the Apochrypha, and Protestants accepted that, adopting the canon of the Masoretic text, which is the Hebrew bible.
Protestants clearly didn’t see Luther as infallible.
You just ask too many unanswerable questions :)
Oh, and by whose or what authority did they designate teachers?
By your own words, you admit that the Apostles provided both successors and a manner in which to chose them.
What I would really like for JimRob to do is host News/Activism on one set of servers and everything else on another. That way we could protect the core of FR and let the religion, blogs, etc. assume a secondary status.
This split system approach may help with the reliability of the whole FR system. The outages and downtime are really hurting this site.
As far as Ted Haggard, I'm not aware of his returning to ministry, nor am I aware of his repenting. It's a topic worthy of looking into. If he has not, he has no place in ministering to Christians.
Forgiveness of sin and the acceptance or accomodation of unrepentant sin are two entirely different things. I can forgive people and have forgiven people for sins that affected me personally. Does that mean I should advocate putting them back into a position of temptation, or that it's not wise to be particularly attentive when it comes to their area(s) of weakness? No, it does not.
Lawyers are involved in the matter of those priests and in several instances bishops as well, and therefore no admission of wrong has been forthcoming that I'm aware. To do so would be an admission of legal culpability on the part of the church, and so there have been quiet settlements involving large sums of money.
Is this the Christian approach? It doesn't appear to be. But, it's not my church, I'm not under their authority no matter what they might claim, and they will deal with the consequences whatever they may be. It's a pity, since the scandal and controversy reflects upon us all as Christians. For this reason, I hope and pray that they're being guided by a higher authority than mere legal counsel, but there is scant indication thus far that this is the case.
Nevertheless, the world is watching and reading about the child abuse by the priests and the inaction and outright cover-ups of and by the clergy.
Not to mention the liberal pro-abortion and pro-homosexual stand for so many prominent Catholic politicians and the voting record of the majority of Catholics.
Non-Catholics are not stupid and can recognize, as well as Ghandi, hypocrisy when they see it.
An ad campaign to bolster image is a waste of time and money. The Catholic church needs first to find out why its members are leaving and deal with that issue, and if they want to entice new converts, they need to clean up their act.
People avoid religion because of hypocrisy. The Catholic church will not be pulling anyone in until they stop acting hypocritically.
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.