Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
Question for Protestants in this group
message 1:
by
An
(new)
Nov 07, 2012 08:35AM
How do you know what books belong in the New Testament?
reply
|
flag
I doubt I qualify as a Protestant, but doesn't it basically boil down to those books which conservatives believe were authored by the Apostles, plus a couple of their closest acquaintances (Luke and Mark, serving with Peter and Paul respectively)?
It is hard to qualify "Protestant". I think a lot of the Reformers (Luther, Calvin) believed the first 500 years or so of church history were great, it was not until after 500 AD or so that errors crept in. So most Protestants accept the first few ecumenical councils and along with this, would probably be okay saying that since these are the books that the early church used, then they are it. Thus, I think churches that are more connected to the Reformers (Presbyterian, Lutheran) may say this.For the more "Bible only" churches, it is probably more difficult because they can't admit they put any trust in the tradition of the church. But this is where I think Lee is on to something - these were the books written early, by those who knew Jesus or were close to those who knew Jesus.
I think some trust in the tradition, the spirit working in the church community, is unavoidable.
Lee wrote: "doesn't it basically boil down to those books which conservatives believe were authored by the Apostles, plus a couple of their closest acquaintances (Luke and Mark, serving with Peter and Paul respectively)?"That's the question. How do you KNOW what books belong in the Bible as a Protestant?
David wrote: "I think a lot of the Reformers (Luther, Calvin) believed the first 500 years or so of church history were great, it was not until after 500 AD or so that errors crept in. So most Protestants accept the first few ecumenical councils and along with this, would probably be okay saying that since these are the books that the early church used, then they are it."The Bible was created at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD by the Catholic Bishops and the Pope. The early reformers, including Luther, rejected the idea that the Pope and Bishops has any authority, and instead they believed in Sola Scriptura. Most, if not all Protestants still do.
Which brings me to my question. Protestants who outwardly reject the authority of the Pope and the Bishops have no reason to believe what they say is indeed guided by the Holy Spirit. So how do Protestants know what books belong in the Bible, if they don't trust the Church to tell them? This question applys to all non-Catholics who believe the Bible is the word of God, not just Bible Christians.
What do you mean by "I think some trust in the tradition, the spirit working in the church community, is unavoidable." Are you saying the Pope and Bishops who put together the Bible were guided by the Holy Spirit? If so, why would the Bishops and Pope of today not be guided by the Holy Spirit still?
Well, let's look at the pope of the old times and the pope today. You say that since both are popes, then either both are guided by the Holy Spirit or neither is. The church members that have selected the books to be in the New Testament have arguably been more devoted to Christ and His gospel. Luther protested the church as it were in his time, and the salvation by works and payment that was practiced. He believed that salvation is by grace alone, which he found from reading the Bible. Today's Catholic church still practices salvation by works and payment (if I am not wrong in the last).To make my point short, the reforms were against the church and not the composition of the Bible. The New Testament is acceptable to the protestants.
Fun times. I am not really interested in a Catholic-Protestant debate, maybe Pavlo is. Thanks for bringing up a good topic though. Forgive me if I was not clear enough in my previous post. Pretty much all Protestants (or just, non-Catholic Western Christians) believe that for the first few centuries the church was doing okay and then there was a great falling away. So the church leadership they resisted in the 1500s was not equivalent to the church leadership in the 300s or 400s. Luther and Calvin had great respect for the early church fathers, especially Augustine. The Pope in the 1500s and the bishop of Rome in the 300s were not the same thing.
Non-Catholics would reject the idea the Bible was created by the Pope. I'll recognize Catholics think the papacy began with Peter, but the sort of papal primacy that reaches a height in the middle ages would date to Leo (400s) or Gregory the Great (late 500s). There have always been bishops of Rome, they may have called themselves "Pope" but the primacy of the Pope and the deference of other bishops was a late development (just ask any Eastern Orthodox person). Heck, the Pope didn't even bother to go to the Council of Nicea!
If you're Catholic, I am not trying to convince you or change your mind. You asked what Protestants believe and I'll try to answer as best I can.
When I say "trust in tradition, the spirit working in the church community" I am saying the early church was guided by the Holy Spirit (as was the medieval church and the reforming church and the global church today). But that guidance was not limited to just Bishops or Popes. So sure, Bishops and Popes are guided by the Spirit today, as are Mennonite pastors and Quaker communities and Orthodox patriarchs and house churches meeting in places all over the place.
When I say "church community" I speak of a spiritual entity that begins in the book of Acts and moves through church history. I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, that while Catholics see it as a straight line from Peter - Benedict, we non-Catholics see it as a line from the community of Christians in Jerusalem and Antioch to all communities centered on Jesus today (which with the diversity of the church, encompassing Pentecostals and Presbyterians and Catholics and Copts and Mennonites and Methodists, it is not much of a straight line).
As far as how I (and I would imagine, many other Protestants) believe the Bible came to be...there is a thread where we discussed this ("Christianity Before the Bible"). We see a core of 4 gospels and Paul's letters being cited by the early church fathers and (long story short) over time it becomes more and more defined until Athanasius' Christmas letter in 367 and the council you mentioned and so on until we end up with what we consider the New Testament today.
I don't think God asked our opinion about what books belong in HIS Bible. People are free to add or remove whatever books their hearts desire - (and they do!)
But people should be able to notice the perfection from Genesis to Revelation even without a council or Pope screwing it up.
It's fun to look at the Catholic Church as the same as the Church of Judaism:Is it possible God used both? YES.
Is it possible God walked away from both? YES.
Is it possible mankind abuses everything God gives them? YES.
I don't attend a Catholic church for the same reason I don't attend a Jewish Church or a lutheran Church: too many extra-biblical rules and traditions that get in the way of Jesus as my Savior.
I'm not saying these churches are not capable of delivering the Gospel (they do on occasion) but they sure don't make it easy to understand Jesus and his plan.
But I have yet to attend a perfect church (it wouldn't allow me in anyway...)
If someone lives in a small town with ONE church. Do the best you can with that group of believer's. Unless it's against the Gospel. I would attend a Catholic Church if that was the only one in town. I would probably get in a few debates - but I would Worship Jesus there.
Rod, I think our answers show the diversity of Protestant Christianity.:)
I am now afraid I responded aggressively. I did not mean any sharp criticism. I only attempted to say that Luther had no problem with the Bible as it were. Thanks, David, for pointing it out. I endorse your post. :)
Pavlo wrote: "The church members that have selected the books to be in the New Testament have arguably been more devoted to Christ and His gospel. Luther protested the church as it were in his time, and the salvation by works and payment that was practiced."The Catholic Church has ALWAYS upheld the Bible as the inspired word of God. Just listen to what the Catachism says about it. "The Church venerates the Divine Scriptures the way she venerates the Body of the Lord." The Popes have always upheld the Bible form the earlist times, and still do.
The Church has always taught salvation by grace. Because Jesus tells us this, Catholics believe that we receive some graces by doing things, like "loving our neighbor as ourslef". We can get grace for sacrificing our money to those in need, because that is an act of chairty. We can not buy our way into Heaven meanwhile.
Rod wrote: "It's fun to look at the Catholic Church as the same as the Church of Judaism:Is it possible God used both? YES.
Is it possible God walked away from both? YES.
Is it possible mankind abuses everyt..."
What does this have to do with how you know what books belong in the New Testemant? Or do you not believe in the Bible's authority?
Rod wrote: "I don't think God asked our opinion about what books belong in HIS Bible. People are free to add or remove whatever books their hearts desire - (and they do!) "
So you are saying there is no set list of inspired books? All books are ispired, even the ones that contradict another? So you are say that if I wanted to add a book to the current Bible, that book I added would be inspired?
David wrote: "Pretty much all Protestants (or just, non-Catholic Western Christians) believe that for the first few centuries the church was doing okay and then there was a great falling away. So the church leadership they resisted in the 1500s was not equivalent to the church leadership in the 300s or 400s.Luther and Calvin had great respect for the early church fathers, especially Augustine. The Pope in the 1500s and the bishop of Rome in the 300s were not the same thing. "
So basically you believe Jesus set up the Church and then let it fall? Have you read Matthew 16:18 "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
If Luther and Calvin respected the Church Fathers, why did they disagree with them on a host of issues?
So basically you believe Jesus set up the Church and then let it fall? Have you read Matthew 16:18 "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The true church did not fall. There has always been the true church mixed in with the fallen church (city of God mingled with City of Man). I for one think when the church began endorsing violence, when Christians went from being basically all pacifists, refusing to join the army, to only allowing Christians in the army and when execution of heretics and crusades began this was not what Jesus had in mind. When the church went for state power, things got messed up.
Do I believe Jesus set up the church and let it fall? No.
Why don't we try some more open discussion please? Would you like to tune us in to where you are coming from? What your opinions are?
I am assuming you are Roman Catholic. Thus, when you say "Jesus set up the Church" I assume you mean the Roman hierarchy. It is thus a loaded question. I don't think Jesus "set up" that church. I don't think Jesus gave Peter an office that was meant to be passed on to popes up to present day. I think Jesus set up a "church" as in a community of people centered on Jesus and empowered by the Holy Spirit. That Church has never fallen.
The church fathers disagreed with each other on a host of issues. I suspect Luther and Calvin disagreed with them because they read them, compared what they found with their interpretation of scripture just as we do. I respect the church fathers AND Luther and Calvin and I still disagree with a lot of what they all say. I would say that of any author I read. I do the best I can to compare what they say with the truth of Jesus Christ.
Bryn, I hope I didn't sound harsh with my questions in the middle of my last post. I just think it helps the discussion to know where all participants stand. Are you skeptical of the Catholic church and seeking answers in order to be justified in leaving? Are you trying to convince us that we ought to join the Catholic church?It is fantastic you are here and this is a good discussion! Thanks for bringing it up.
Well said David:" I think Jesus set up a "church" as in a community of people centered on Jesus and empowered by the Holy Spirit. That Church has never fallen."
That is the Church that I am a part of as well. This Church has been present throughout the last 1900 years. While religious institutions have been committing endless atrocities this institution of Jesus has been accomplishing amazing things throughout the world.
Even before the Roman Catholic Church was established the scriptures and Gospel were off and traveling in numerous directions.
______________________________________________________
Bryn question:
"What does this have to do with how you know what books belong in the New Testament? Or do you not believe in the Bible's authority?"
The Jewish Church did not declare the Old Testament anymore than the Catholic church officially declared the New Testament. God did his work whether they agreed or not.
The New Testament was basically agreed on by the end of the first century - Where was the Pope or Bishops then?
God does not need our help or agreement.
I agree incredibly with the Bible's authority.
I think you have a problem understanding Matthew 16:18 "Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 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 beg loosed in heaven.”
Is the Bible about Peter or Jesus? Is the truth of Heaven and Hell about Peter or Jesus? Is the Church built on Peter or Jesus? Do we listen to Peter or Jesus?
Peter is wonderful but he is not perfect. Even James has more authority than Peter it seems(Acts 15:7-21)
The Bible has so much authority that i'm sure it would of been perfectly fine without a Pope or a Roman Catholic empire to sustain it. It is the Word of God after all.
David wrote: "Bryn, I hope I didn't sound harsh with my questions in the middle of my last post. I just think it helps the discussion to know where all participants stand. Are you skeptical of the Catholic chur..."You didn't sound harsh, no worries. :D
I am a Catholic who loves her faith and is honestly trying to understand how Protestants can believe in the Bible when they are against Catholicism. The Catholics put together the New Testemant, and as a Catholic, I know what books belong in the Bible because the Pope told me, with the power given to him by Jesus. However, Popeless Protestants...how do you know what books belong in the Bible? Why would you accept the Pope who created the Bible was infalible, and later decide He's not? Why would you believe in "the Bible alone" when neither Jesus nor the Bible itself teaches that?
Thank you for participating in the discussion!
Bryn questions:"So you are saying there is no set list of inspired books? All books are inspired, even the ones that contradict another? So you are say that if I wanted to add a book to the current Bible, that book I added would be inspired?"
You seem to be running the wrong way with everything Bryn. Interesting...
I think we very clearly have a set list of Biblical books. We've had it for over 1900 years. But it also works the other way - if we only had a few of these books they would have enough information for Salvation and Truth - some societies and cultures are not as blessed as us to have Bibles as plentiful as we do. If all someone had was the Gospel of John, or Matthew etc. that would be enough truth for salvation.
Only Biblical books are inspired. The apocrypha is not. Neither are the Gnostic books. Neither is something you are I write - The Bible is complete. I'm curious why we are even discussing this Bryn?
Why isn't the Pope continuing to write scripture Bryn? What would you say?
David wrote: "I for one think when the church began endorsing violence, when Christians went from being basically all pacifists, refusing to join the army, to only allowing Christians in the army and when execution of heretics and crusades began this was not what Jesus had in mind. When the church went for state power, things got messed up."
I agree wholeheartedly-as does the Catholic Church-that she has made some mistakes. She shouldn't have executed people because they were Protestants, for example. However, the Church never taught (key word) false doctrine, regarding faith.
If you believe Catholism was messed up for doing those things, I have to ask, what about when the Protestants did the same? They executed Catholics, demolished/burned churches/statues, killed people, espeacially priests and religious, around the time of the reformation. Protestants gave priests a particularly hard time, torturing them, killing them, etc. Is that at least not just as bad as what the Catholic Church admited to doing wrongfully?
I must also point out, that Luther didn't create Protestantism because of violence. He did it because He had an aleged problem with Catholic doctrine.
Thanks for having this discussion with us Bryn. It's very important. We need someone like you in our group. :)However, I will probably come across as Harsh. Such is life!
I say I am not a Protestant or a Catholic. I'm trying to be like a person from the Christian church of the 1st century.
Bryn statement:
" I know what books belong in the Bible because the Pope told me, with the power given to him by Jesus."
I don't recall there being a Pope in my Bible. Or any prophecies about the coming Roman Catholic Church or its messy historical chaos. Don't feel bad though - there's no specific prophecies about Luther or Baptists or Free Methodists. I don't put any faith in any regular human (Popes or Bishops or Missionaries or scholars). I just try to trust God's word.
1. How do you know what books belong in the New Testament? 2. The Bible was created at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD by the Catholic Bishops and the Pope.
3. Protestants who outwardly reject the authority of the Pope and the Bishops have no reason to believe what they say is indeed guided by the Holy Spirit. So how do Protestants know what books belong in the Bible, if they don't trust the Church to tell them?
I listed the above questions so I could follow the line of reasoning posited by the original poster. Basically, the argument is that protestants who reject the Pope and the authority of the Roman Catholic Church have no way of knowing what books belong in the Bible for it is the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church that confirms to the world what books should be in the Bible.
Basically Bryn, your comment that the Bible was created at the Council of Carthage in 397 is either incredibly oversimplified or just plain misinformed. You seem like a very smart person so I'm going with the former. The Council of Carthage created nothing. I suspect the process was a little more intuitive (and as a Christian I strongly endorse that the process was guided by the Holy Spirit).
First off, every shred of evidence suggests that early Christians began collecting and circulating the books of the Bible as they were written (and whether you hold to the common early dates or common later dates) all were in circulation long before 397 AD. The early Christians certainly placed more emphasis and authority on those books written or influenced by the apostles. So by the time the Council of Carthage rolled around those books of the Bible that were seen as Canonical were already pretty much established (which is evidenced in the writings of the church fathers prior to 397). The problem was, however, that there many false books being written and circulated that needed to be weeded out. So the Council didn't create anything, rather it confirmed what books were already seen as Canon.
I would assume most Catholic Christians would argue the establishing of the cannon in exactly this same manner. Of course, the Protestant Reformation wasn't until 1100+ years later. So there are roughly 1400 or so years of history shared by the Catholic and Protestant Church. Luther's 95 Theses which stated the reasons disagreements with the established church can be read at http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history... ... none of his arguments from what I can tell concerned the cannon of Scripture.
Personally, while I am a protestant, I am not hostile toward the Catholic Church. So I'm hopeful our discussion here can remain positive and productive!
Clark
Rod wrote: "The Jewish Church did not declare the Old Testament anymore than the Catholic church officially declared the New Testament."The Jewish Chruch never did declare an official Old Testemant until far after Christ's time. In Jesus's day, there were MANY different types of Jews, with different beliefs. In Jesus's day, they had all the books, but different Jews used different books. We have no way of knowing which books Jesus would have used, because we don't know which type of Jew Jesus was.
Rod wrote: "Even before the Roman Catholic Church was established the scriptures and Gospel were off and traveling in numerous directions."
Catholicism was established on Pentecost before the scriptures were written. It's true the books were off beofre the Bible was-and that was the problem exactly! No one knew which books should read at Mass. There was disagreement. So a Counicl was held, and the Bible created. (The Bible was created by the Church. However, the books in the Bible were not written by the Church, but by the Church faithful.)
Rod wrote: "The New Testament was basically agreed on by the end of the first century - Where was the Pope or Bishops then?"
That just isn't ture. Ever heard of the Muratorian Fragment? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratori...
Rod Wrote: "I think you have a problem understanding Matthew 16:18"
I disagree. Jesus is making Peter Pope, and He is saying that the Church will prevail until the end of time. Jesus is making Peter the rock of the Catholic Church, a rock that is protected by infalibilty. (Matthew 18:18). The Pope is led by Jesus.
Rod Wrote: "Is the Bible about Peter or Jesus? Is the truth of Heaven and Hell about Peter or Jesus? Is the Church built on Peter or Jesus? Do we listen to Peter or Jesus?"
The Bible is about a lot of people, not one person. We listen to Jesus, whether He speaks through the Pope, or through the Bible.
Rod Wrote: "The Bible has so much authority that i'm sure it would of been perfectly fine without a Pope or a Roman Catholic empire to sustain it. It is the Word of God after all."
The genius of the Papacy is that without a Pope, we would have no way of knowing how to interpret scripture. You wouldn't know who's interpretation is right. Jesus knew this, and He wanted us to understand what He was telling us in the Bible, so He set up the Pope, to guide the Chruch.
I must also point out, that Luther didn't create Protestantism because of violence. He did it because He had an aleged problem with Catholic doctrine. True. Personally I identify more with the Anabaptists at the time of the Reformation and they were getting killed by both Lutherans and Catholics. But anyway....
I wasn't trying to demean the Catholic church and as you say, other churches have a lot of blood on their hands. My point is more that I believe all visible churches (Lutheran, Catholic, etc.) have within them both true Christians and ones just along for the ride (perhaps that parable where Jesus talks about letting wheat and weeds grow together would fit here).
Catholicism was established on Pentecost before the scriptures were written
I think this is at the root of disagreements such as these. Like you said, Catholics believe the Church was established and you define church by Roman Catholic hierarchy (bishops, pope, etc.). Us non-Catholics see the Church as simply the people who follow Jesus worldwide (thus, no hierarchy, no real structure, no bishops and so on). So of course Catholics interpret Jesus as making Peter pope and of course Protestants disagree with that interpretation (Peter was married though...he had a mother-in-law, forgive me for not looking up the verse...how does that work for Catholics?).
Good call on the Muratorian fragment. You should look at our discussion "Christianity Before the Bible" - http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1... - for a window on how a group of Protestants discuss this same question.
I guess for lack of nuance, I would be a lot closer to a Catholic view of tradition than Rod would. I think the absolute supremacy of the Pope (like your last paragraph about Papacy without the pope) is too king-like. When I read Acts and study the early church there was no deference to one guy. I do not expect the Catholic church to change for me, but I think a sort of "first among equals" would work for a lot of us. I mean, in the early church the bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch were as powerful as Rome.
I think Protestantism is more messy. There are so many times it would be nice, I think, to have a definitive authority to defer to (might make our discussions more boring). We trust the Spirit to work, but the Spirit does not write papal bulls (well, I guess the Spirit does if you're Catholic ;)
At any rate, you did not start this thread to has out differences between Protestant and Catholic (and we need some Greek Orthodox too!). Maybe fun for another time.
Most of the World still does not know which books are official Holy Scripture. So something is not working. (I'll give you a hint: It's US!)Bryn quote:
"The Bible is about a lot of people, not one person. We listen to Jesus, whether He speaks through the Pope, or through the Bible."
Hitler spoke about Jesus. Should we have listened to him? He declared himself the spiritual leader of Germany - does that make him so?
How come there is nothing mentioned of Peter (the ROCK OF THE CHURCH) after the book of Acts? Why did God allow him to die early? Why did he not give us numerous writings recommending the Catholic Church and its future Popes?
Because:
Luke 16
"“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
We don't need the Pope - we have Moses and the Prophets.
Rod wrote: "Only Biblical books are inspired. The apocrypha is not. Neither are the Gnostic books. Neither is something you are I write - The Bible is complete. I'm curious why we are even discussing this Bryn? Why isn't the Pope continuing to write scripture Bryn? What would you say? "How do you know which books are inspired?
The Pope didn't write the Bible, clearly. The Pope told us which books belong in the Bible, which are inspired. The Pope does on the other hand, write a lot of religious things, and still does.
Please forgive me-I don't type very fast, so I might be playing catch up with the rest of you for a while, lol. :D
Rod wrote: "Thanks for having this discussion with us Bryn. It's very important. We need someone like you in our group. :)However, I will probably come across as Harsh. I don't recall there being a Pope in my Bible."And vice versa! I sometimes sound harsh too, so I apologize in advance.
The Pope in your Bible would be Peter. Let me back that up with some Bible verses.
Matthew 16:18-19 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Matthew 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Also, I found this article very interesting:
http://www.onechurch.org/Peter_and_th...
Clark wrote: "First off, every shred of evidence suggests that early Christians began collecting and circulating the books of the Bible as they were written (and whether you hold to the common early dates or common later dates) all were in circulation long before 397 AD. The early Christians certainly placed more emphasis and authority on those books written or influenced by the apostles. So by the time the Council of Carthage rolled around those books of the Bible that were seen as Canonical were already pretty much established (which is evidenced in the writings of the church fathers prior to 397). The problem was, however, that there many false books being written and circulated that needed to be weeded out. So the Council didn't create anything, rather it confirmed what books were already seen as Canon. "
Forgive me-I clearly need to clarify what I mean when I say Bible. When I say Bible, I mean Official Inspired Cannon. I am well aware that the books were being circulated before the Bible was created by the Church. However, beofre the council, there was confusion and debate over what books were inspired. The Church didn't
"confirmed what books were already seen as Canon". If there was already a Canon everyone agreed on, then the Church would have no need to create the Bible. The fact that everyone didn't agree is exactly why they did go ahead and create the Bible.
Some uninspired books that were going around, inlcude Epistle of Barnabas, First Clement, Revelation of Peter, and Shepard of Hermas. Some Christians didn't believe Revelation, Acts, or Jude were inspired.
I likewise have nothing against Protestants-many are great friends of mine. I also hope our discussion here can remain positive and productive.
David wrote: "My point is more that I believe all visible churches (Lutheran, Catholic, etc.) have within them both true Christians and ones just along for the ride So of course Catholics interpret Jesus as making Peter pope and of course Protestants disagree with that interpretation (Peter was married though...he had a mother-in-law, forgive me for not looking up the verse...how does that work for Catholics?)."I agree that there are true Christians, and doctrines, among all Christian denominations. However, there are also false doctrines, imo, held by non-Catholic denominations.
What then do you make of Matthew 16:18-19?
This answers your question about Peter's marriage:
http://fatherjoe.wordpress.com/2009/0...
(I'm going to split up my response into two posts to you reply.) @David
"Good call on the Muratorian fragment."
Thanks! :D
"I mean, in the early church the bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch were as powerful as Rome."
Could you give me your sources? I've never heard that before...
Rod wrote: "Hitler spoke about Jesus. Should we have listened to him? He declared himself the spiritual leader of Germany - does that make him so?We don't need the Pope - we have Moses and the Prophets.
"
Great point! We know Jesus was not speaking through Hitler because God does not contradict Himself. God doesn't say "Thou shall not kill", and later, "Kill the Jews".
No one but the Pope is has infalibilty. But the God does on occasion speak through the rest of us. What do I mean by infalibility? See below links.
https://sites.google.com/site/apostol...
http://www.catholicbible101.com/papal...
This one I didn't read all of it, but it looks interesting.
http://www.catholicthinker.net/peter-...
Don't need a Pope? Then how do you know what books belong in the Bible? I'm still wondering.
The big question comes down to the authors meaning of Matthew 16.I see that you really want it to mean that Peter is the building block of the Church, Peter holds the keys to the Kingdom, and Peter has control of what is loosed in Heaven. And you assume that Peter hands this over to a Pope?
So are the gates of Hell prevailing against Peter? Is Peter really that important? Not really. It's about Jesus and His Bride of Christ.
Matthew 18:18-20 is interesting:
"18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
Is this about Peter? Is everyone present when Jesus said this? So this authority is NOT just for Peter.
Matthew 16:18-20
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.
So best thing is that this is all about Jesus. WE both win.
So what exactly did anyone bind or loose in Heaven and Earth? The only thing that is actually important is salvation. Churches come and go all the time. Churches do not make it to heaven. Yet people with salvation do.
When people are saved on Earth by Jesus - they are also saved in Heaven by JESUS.
Just make sure Bryn that your religion is about Jesus - and not Popes and Catholic empires.
Matthew 16:16-18 (give this some thought)
Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven...and on this rock I will build my church.
On the Rock of Jesus, Rock of our Salvation.
Here's an interesting quote:"At first glance, it may appear that Jesus was referring to Peter as "the rock", but we have to keep in mind that the New Testament was written in Greek, not English. This is one instance where the original wording reveals the true meaning of what is being said. The Greek word for Peter is petros, which means "a pebble" or a small stone. On the other hand, the Greek word that Jesus used for rock is petra, meaning "a massive rock" or bedrock. Now we can see that there is an obvious difference! Peter was correct when he stated that Jesus was "the Christ" and it was this profession of truth that the church would be founded upon: Jesus Christ "the chief cornerstone" (Matthew 21:42). Jesus was talking about building His church upon the solid bedrock, not a small pebble.
Bryn wrote: "Clark wrote: "The Church didn't"confirmed what books were already seen as Canon"
What I should have said was that the council merely confirmed what was already seen as authoritative. Your comment that there were other books in circulation is precisely why such a pronouncement was necessary.
I think we are in total agreement concerning the formation of the cannon. I am slightly confused as to why you then make the argument that we are dependent on the Pope to accept your (and my) theory as to why we should accept the cannon. I am also confused how the Protestant Reformation impacts the discussion.
Perhaps I'm missing a step in your argument ...
Clark
Bryn quote:"No one but the Pope is has infalibility."
So you are saying that throughout history NO Pope has done the evil that Hitler has done? No murders? NO oppression? No cruelty? No racism?
Are you sure? Look carefully.
I'm not trying to destroy your Christian beliefs. All Christian denominations have problems. That is why we put our faith in God and his Word - not his people.
Ephesians 2:19-2219 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together...
Jesus is indeed a Rock of the Church.
Rod wrote: "Jesus is indeed a Rock of the Church"Amen ... "The" Rock of the Church.
Jesus is the Corner Stone, the Rejected Stone, and the Stumbling Stone. 1 Peter 2:6-8, "For this is contained in Scripture:'Behold, I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone,And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.' This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve,'The stone which the builders rejected, This became the very corner stone, and, 'A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense' ...
I agree with you Rod. Matthew 16:18 must be read within the context of Scripture in its entirety.
Clark
Clark wrote: "What I should have said was that the council merely confirmed what was already seen as authoritative"What I'm saying is everyone disagreed on what was authoritative. Several books in today's Bible, inlcuding Acts, Jude, and Revelation, were not "already seen as authrotiative".
Rod wrote: "The big question comes down to the authors meaning of Matthew 16."I found these articles, and I'd like to share them.
Source: http://www.catholicthinker.net/peter-...
The “God is the Rock” Argument
There are many places in the Old Testament where God is referred to as “rock”, and so Protestants argue that Christ must have actually been referring to God (or Himself – He also being God). But this is just completely nonsensical, for Christ was referring to Peter literally and there is no way around this. In fact, the fact that previously “rock” had been used to refer to God makes the passage all the more remarkable.
Besides the fact that the text clearly has Christ referring to Peter as the “Rock”, there is the large problem that Christ is doing so because He had already given Peter “Rock” as his name (which is what Peter/Cephas means) as described in John 1:42.
In fact there is no difficulty with God being likened to a “rock” and Peter (“Rock”!) being called Rock as well – Scripture in many instances uses the same name or metaphor to apply to different things. Both Jesus and the apostles are called the foundation of the Church, both Christ and all Christians referred to as “stones”, and both Christ and the faithful called the “temple of God”, for example.
This argument, like so many (virtually all?) Protestant objections to Catholic doctrine, is based on the unhealthy and illogical practice of pitting Scripture against Itself: reading in the small and “proof-texting” by literally claiming that one part of Scripture (the most overtly Catholics part) is contradicted and “outdone” by another part. But that is foolishness; all Scripture is true and free from error. And Catholic doctrine weaves it all into a harmonious whole with no contradictions.
The fact is that Scripture repeatedly assigns divine attributes to Peter and the other apostles, because the Church is a divine institution.
In addition, there actually is an Old Testament precedent to a man being called “Rock” as well: Abraham. Here is Isaiah 51:1-2:
“[1] Give ear to me, you that follow that which is just, and you that seek the Lord: look unto the rock whence you are hewn, and to the hole of the pit from which you are dug out. [2] Look unto Abraham your father, and to Sara that bore you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and multiplied him.”
Here Abraham is equated with the “rock” in verse one. (Salza outlines the uncanny parallels between Abraham and Peter: each a patriarch of a covenant of God, each the first leader of their respective Covenants, both shepherds of the people of the Covenant, both had their name changed by God, and both called “rock”.)
The “Peter is the Small Rock” ArgumentSince it’s very clear that Peter is indeed (literally) Rock and that Christ tells him he (Peter) will be the foundation of the Church, another line of Protestation has been to argue, via a tortured linguistic gymnastic, that while Peter is indeed a “rock” he is a “small” (or female) rock and Christ is, in contract, a “large” rock.
Of course, this one is also completely untenable and is revealed as nothing more than clever sophistry under scrutiny. (And while I do not speak or read Greek, I believe those who say that no native Greek speaker reading the original Greek text would ever read it in the sense that the proponents of this argument insist on.)
The argument is a linguistic one based on the fact that Greek has both masculine and feminine forms of nouns. In the Greek translation (of Christ’s words most likely spoken in Aramaic – more on that below), Christ calls Peter “Petros” initially but in the “build my church” phrase uses “petra” for “rock”. Protestants argue that Christ used this contrast because he was referring to Peter as a “pebble” but Himself as the “rock” on which the Church is built.
The first problem is that the language that most historians (Christian and otherwise) say Christ and His followers spoke, Aramaic, does not have gender-specific nouns (which should not be surprising to us English-speakers as we don’t either). If this is true – and it’s extremely likely it is – there is no way the argument can have any merit whatsoever because there is only one form of rock (neuter) in Aramaic just as there is in English.
But, to continue with the Greek: it turns out that the grammatical rules of the language do require the two different forms of rock be used, because of the gender of the object (Peter). Petra is a feminine noun naturally, but when used as the name of a man its masculine form – Petros – must be used. Also, it is not true – according to the experts – that Greek requires genders to match when they are used to refer to the same object – that is true only of pronouns. Any exegist who is honestly fluent in Greek can confirm these things.
John Salza again goes into the details expertly, and also provides great evidence that petra means only a large, immovable rock, providing many examples from Scripture of the contrary.
Says D.A. Carson (a Protestant): “Although it is true that petros and petra can mean 'stone' and 'rock' respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover, the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ('you are kepha' and 'on this kepha'), since the word was used both for a name and for a 'rock.' The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name." (Carson, The Expositor's Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1984], volume 8, page 368, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 17-18)
I must draw attention a final time to the fact that these arguments are contrived and artificial. Furthermore, if they had merit, they would do in themselves fatal damage to the Protestant tenet of private interpretation of Scripture! No Christian reading this passage without bias would read into it what Protestants want read into it – if it were true that it does not mean what it says so clearly it could not be true that all of Scripture can be easily understood by anyone who “has the Spirit”.
Peter Is Given The KeysIt’s very useful, before analyzing the Scripture pertaining to Christ’s bestowing of the Keys, to reflect a bit on the meaning of things like keys of authority and “binding & loosing”. Matthew’s gospel was written specifically for the Jews, and some say written in Hebrew as well as Greek, and it is full of parallels to the Old Testament.
Jews in Christ’s time were, of course, anticipating the coming of the Messiah who would restore David’s kingdom (established around 1,000 BC, and which God promised would endure forever). In David’s kingdom, the king would appoint a steward to rule in his absence, and this steward was given a “key” symbolizing this authority. First century Jews would have immediately understood that Christ’s use of the word “key” to symbolize authority was a parallel to the Davidic kingdom. (“The Old Testament is the New concealed, but the New Testament is the Old revealed", as Augustine said.)
The story of the steward Eliacim is frequently cited in reference to Peter’s stewardship. Here is a relevant passage from Isaiah:
[21] And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. [22] And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. [23] And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father. [24] And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, divers kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music. [25] In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord hath spoken it. (Isaiah 22:21-25)
Note the many parallels between this passage, which it seems apparent Christ had in mind when addressing Peter, and Matthew 16:
■Jesus is now ascending the throne of David, and He too now appoints a steward
■Eliacim is described as a “father” over a “household” with authority
■What he “opens” and “shuts” (binds & looses) no one shall oppose
According to Jewish Tradition King Hezekiah was the most close “type” of the Messiah. God even “raised him up” from death (sickness) on the third day! In this typology Christ is the new Hezekiah and Peter the new Eliacim.
Steve Ray Notes, “The parallels between Peter and Eliakim [sic] are striking. The physical kingdom of Israel has been superseded by the spiritual kingdom of God. The office of steward in the old economy is now superseded by the Petrine office with the delegation and handing on of the keys. The office of steward was successive, and so is the Petrine office in the new kingdom."
Further, Christ, in fact, told several parables recorded in the New Testament regarding a “master” or king and a steward to which he delegates authority in the master’s absence. In fact, in Luke 12:42 he even tells Peter directly that he (Peter) is the steward in the parable!
There is also a direct parallel between the “binding and loosing” Christ grants to Peter and the authority of the Old Covenant: this was the language used by the Sanhedrin to describe what they permitted or forbade in their Rabbinical teaching office. As with the Keys, the Jews would have immediately understood that God’s authority was moving from His representatives in the Old Covenant to those of the new – Peter first. (Don’t make the mistake of believing Christ did not respect the authority of the Sanhedrin: He ordered the people to do what they say, just not what they do, because they were hypocrites. But, He regards their authority as divine as they sit on the “Chair of Moses” – a concept not found in the Old Testament but part of the Jewish oral tradition.)
Indeed, the papacy is the archetype prefigured by the type of the Davidic stewards. A critical thing to keep in mind, though, is that the King delegates His authority to the steward – the steward is 2nd to the King and exercises authority for the King in the King’s absence. This is why Christ speaks continuously of “My Church” and “My people” – we are indeed His, with Peter and his successors only standing in His stead with His full permission and divinely granted authority. This point is driven home by the fact that immediately after granting Peter the Keys Christ speaks of His own imminent death (“From that time Jesus began to shew to his disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the ancients and scribes and chief priests, and be put to death, and the third day rise again.”) – there is the need for a steward.
More ObjectionsOf course, Protestants have objections over these things too. (Curiously, as with virtually every single area of Protestant conflict with Catholic teaching, there is no record at all of any of these objections existing or being given serious weight by anyone before the 16th century.)
And as is often the case, these objections revolve largely around what I would have to call “word games” and “reading in the small” (picking out verses that only seem to contradict others, and thus pitting Scripture against Scripture). For example, it has been claimed that when Christ spoke of the “Kingdom of Heaven” He meant only the afterlife – yet from His parables it is clear this is not true. The mustard seed, the sower, leaven, a net catching fishes – all are metaphors for the evangelization and growth of the Church on Earth. Furthermore, Christ said this Kingdom would have “bad seeds” and “fools” – neither are to be found in eternal beatitude.
Likewise, it has been claimed that because Christ’s use of “Keys” is indeed plural it does not have anything in common with the Davidic key of authority – a nearly preposterous contention given all the evidence. John Salza makes sense of the plurality of the Keys in his excellent book The Biblical Basis of the Papacy – Peter was given two separate realms of authority, earthly (Church administration) and Heavenly – the power over souls that the binding and loosing entails. (See Rev 1:18 where the “keys of death and Hell” are referenced.)
It is well known that Paul rebuked Peter in his epistle and much has been made of this. Yet, Scripture does not undo Scripture; the authority given to Peter by Christ so clearly established in the New Testament is not undone if Paul had a disagreement with Christ’s Vicar. In fact, the Holy Spirit may have enshrined this incidence in Scripture (along with examples of Peter’s sin or weakness) to clarify the nature of the papacy: the Pope is not God and the Pope is not perfect. He can sin, and in fact all of them have sinned. And he can certainly make practical decisions that are imprudent or possibly just not popular with everyone!
Despite what has been written about the incident of Paul rebuking Peter for not eating with gentiles, it is not a foregone conclusion (despite what I myself used to think) that Peter sinned here – he may have simply unintentionally offended. In any case, it was Peter that first opened the Church to non-Jews and was the first to baptize them – there’s no evidence he practiced some sort of deep-seated prejudice. If he did, though, it’s clear that Christ didn’t remove him as head of the Church. The fact that Paul refers to him as Cephas in that passage underscores the fact that Paul acknowledged his authority over him.
Another objection frequently raised is that all of the apostles have authority (amusingly, this objection is most frequently raised by Christians who claim that Church leaders had and have no authority). I will not devote a great deal of effort to this question because it is something else clearly responded to by Scripture: the other apostles did indeed have authority (as their successors, the world’s bishops, do) but that authority is secondary to the Vicar’s and exercised only in concert with his. This is why only Peter was expressly given the Keys, only Peter was renamed “Rock”, and why the early Church clearly recognized Peter as the prime apostle and leader of the Church as has been made clear.
David Currie paraphrases the great G.K. Chesterson regarding these Keys: [Chesterson] “made an interesting point by observing that keys are unique and cannot be altered without making them useless. It is no good saying that the shape of a certain key doesn’t please me, and so I will file it down. If I change the key, I make it useless for its original purpose.” He continues, “Some Evangelicals wish that Rome’s authority within the Catholic Church were less complex, or less physical, or less spiritual, or less worldly, or less something else. They learn for the elusive “simple religion of Jesus”. We must never forget, however, that it is not our prerogative to demand change to suit our fancy. The keys to rule the Church permanently were given to Peter and to his successors in Rome, not even to the other apostles, let alone to me. If I refuse the key provided, I have only myself to blame if I fumble at the door.”
Papal InfallibilityAs John Salza points out, if Christ promised that Hell “would not prevail” against His Church than the Church Itself is a divine institution, for so it must be to survive such an attack - nor would Hell attack in the first place if there Church were merely natural. Satan hates the Church for the Church is the means by which Christ snatches souls from his grasp.
To define the doctrine, I could quote the Catechism, but I’ll quote Keating, because this is a good quote: “Through the guardianship of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is guaranteed not to teach error regarding faith or morals (presuming, of course, he intends to make an ex cathedra statement and is not speaking as a private scholar). But he cannot teach what is true unless he first knows what is true, and he learns that the same way we do. Catholics who fail this quiz [on the definition of the doctrine] may understand why nearly all Fundamentalists misunderstand infallibility. They do not know what ‘infallibility’ means. Most of them hear ‘infallibility’ and hear ‘impeccability’. They think Catholics believe the Pope cannot sin.” (These last three sentences are very important: confused anti-Catholics seem to put tremendous effort into trying to prove that this or that pope was evil or did evil things. Yes, that’s right: popes are sinners. Every one, starting with Peter. Christ knew that Peter was a sinner and yet gave him His Keys. And He knew every other pope would be a sinner, too. That is fine, because the Holy Spirit simply will not allow these men to teach error officially in their capacity of leader of the Church, and none of them ever have.)
In fact, the infallibility of Christ’s Vicar in matters pertaining to salvation (faith & morality) is implied directly by His words to Peter in Matthew 16 as well as the logical necessity for and fact of the apostolic succession of Peter’s office. Christ told Peter that Heaven would ratify his decisions – God cannot ratify error! Peter & his successors teach only what the Holy Spirit inspires them to teach, and by definition these things are true! It is essentially just that simple.
The infallibility of the Successor of Peter in matters of faith & morals was recognized by the early Church. Like many Christian doctrines (dogmas), its understanding grew over time, and in this particular case it was a long time indeed before the doctrine was formalized into dogma. (Some of the most core and important Christological truths that virtually all Protestants accept (usually implicitly) were not formalized until the 4th century.) Yet Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, asked, ‘Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence Apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?’”
Would they?
Rod wrote: "Jesus is indeed the rock of the Church"Sure, but so is Peter. Jesus is the King, Peter His amabassador.
I have to admit, I enjoy discussing the Pope, but we are getting a little off course. This isn't a debate on whether Jesus established the papacy. Let's say I was wrong. Let's say I was indeed misinterpretting Matthew 16. How do you know without a Pope, which books belong in the Bible? How do you know? Because if you're right, and the Papacy was never established, the Pope had no right to declare "these are the inspired books" in 397. How would you prove to me that Acts, for example, belonged?
Well, I have to go. I'm actually having a busy weekend, so I don't expect to get back on here until Monday. So I thought I'd leave you guys with this. Good luck!http://www.catholic-convert.com/wp-co...
Oh, and thanks in advance for the answers! :D
