Council of Nicea

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Is that actually the case--that because the Bible books are not identified in the Book of Concord, Lutherans officially believe that the Canon is open? This, if true, would also have to be spelled out in the Book of Concord, I'm guessing.

No, no mention of it in in the BoC. Martin Chemnitz does however say as much in his "Examination of the Council of Trent". This idea is also discussed in this article; http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view:

The 1580 Book of Concord is easily the longest confessional standard coming out of the Reformation, dwarfing the various Reformed statements, the post-Reformation Westminster Standards, and even clocking in at about double the length of the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. So it may surprise you to learn that unlike Trent, Westminster, the 39 Articles, etc, there is no definition of the canon of Scripture in the Lutheran Confessions. This is relevant because between Catholics and Protestants, the canon debate is framed in such away that either you believe in an inerrant Protestant canon of 66 books based on their self-evident, internal witness to their own divine inspiration, or you believe that the infallible Church inerrantly defined the canon, and that it is accepted only on that authority. But as with many theological issues, the Lutheran position takes neither of the supposedly only two possible options without being a synthesis, either.

 

[Albion]

No, no mention of it in in the BoC. Martin Chemnitz does however say as much in his "Examination of the Council of Trent". This idea is also discussed in this article; http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view:

OK. I just was curious if it was an official Lutheran POV. I think, by the way, that there is another possible explanation--that the council did its best, that it made sense, and we adhere to it for lack of any other, better, approach. IOW, if the 66 books are not right; we have no other guess. This seems to me, in fact, closer to what that article is saying than that the canon is believed to be open.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

OK. I just was curious if it was an official Lutheran POV. I think, by the way, that there is another possible explanation--that the council did its best, that it made sense, and we adhere to it for lack of any other, better, approach. IOW, if the 66 books are not right; we have no other guess. This seems to me, in fact, closer to what that article is saying than that the canon is believed to be open.

It might be safer to say the we can not in all certainty, say that we are sure that the canon is closed.

 

[Albion]

It might be safer to say the we can not in all certainty, say that we are sure that the canon is closed.

But why wouldn't it be closed? Is God going to change his mind about the atonement, salvation, the second coming or something else like that? Does he need a footnote or two because he forgot a few things?

 

[PaladinValer]

Why should we trust the council of Nicea in regards to the "authorized" version of the Bible? How can man decide what the truth of God is and is not?

The Canon of Holy Scripture was never decided upon by Nicaea I; that is a popular belief but we have the canons of the Ecumenical Council and none of them have anything to do with the Holy Bible in that way.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

But why wouldn't it be closed? Is God going to change his mind about the atonement, salvation, the second coming or something else like that? Does he need a footnote or two because he forgot a few things?

While it may seem improbable, it's not impossible that through archaeological research that other scriptural works may be discovered and come to light. The bigger question may be; would we have the sense to include such as part of Holy Scripture, or has time closed the Canon for us?

 

[Albion]

While it may seem improbable, it's not impossible that through archaeological research that other scriptural works may be discovered and come to light. The bigger question may be; would we have the sense to include such as part of Holy Scripture, or has time closed the Canon for us?

Hmmmm. I either misunderstood or that's quite a different idea from what I thought I was dealing with. When I took the negative position on a closed/open canon, I had in mind new "revelations" in the Mormon mode but here you're speaking of original ones that we just missed somehow. For those, I don't know. My basic position (as also with the Apocrypha) has always been that we have to presume that God had a hand in us deciding on the ones we did and that any additional manuscripts, however genuine, would not counteract any doctrines derived from the 66 books we have agreed on.

 

[ViaCrucis]

While it may seem improbable, it's not impossible that through archaeological research that other scriptural works may be discovered and come to light. The bigger question may be; would we have the sense to include such as part of Holy Scripture, or has time closed the Canon for us?

I would think that before even beginning to speculate on supposed lost writings, that there already exists certain writings--the Deuterocanonicals and the New Testament Antilegomena--that would take incredible precedence over something long tucked under a rock which Christianity has been hitherto unaware of. What could be Canon should have some precedence and presence in the historic devotion of the Christian Faithful. Or so I'd argue.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Hmmmm. I either misunderstood or that's quite a different idea from what I thought I was dealing with. When I took the negative position on a closed/open canon, I had in mind new "revelations" in the Mormon mode but here you're speaking of original ones that we just missed somehow. For those, I don't know. My basic position (as also with the Apocrypha) has always been that we have to presume that God had a hand in us deciding on the ones we did and that any additional manuscripts, however genuine, would not counteract any doctrines derived from the 66 books we have agreed on.

I would think that before even beginning to speculate on supposed lost writings, that there already exists certain writings--the Deuterocanonicals and the New Testament Antilegomena--that would take incredible precedence over something long tucked under a rock which Christianity has been hitherto unaware of. What could be Canon should have some precedence and presence in the historic devotion of the Christian Faithful. Or so I'd argue.

-CryptoLutheran

Any such discovery would have to pass where the Deiterocanonicals and Antilegomena have failed; but even if they did would Christianity accept them? Reformed protestantism has been without the Apocrypha and those books of the Antilegomena (that did not quite make it in) so long now, that most would argue that they not only are not "Scripture" but they are heretical and that even their historic value is questionable. Just as the Didache is out because it describes the Celebration of the Mass.

 

[1watchman]

It is wise to not trust any doctrines, creeds, rules and traditions of religious men. The Holy Bible is God's Word, so hold firmly to that and one will do well..

 

[PaladinValer]

It is wise to not trust any doctrines, creeds, rules and traditions of religious men. The Holy Bible is God's Word, so hold firmly to that and one will do well..

An unhistorical position. How do you reconcile it with proven historic evidence?

 

[Resha Caner]

In answer to your Holy Spirit question- I believe that inspiration is personal. That God will lead us to revelations through various means according to each individual.

How are people to discern this personal inspiration?

I can guess at where you might be going with your question about the canon, but it would be better to hear it directly from you. So, the reason for my question is this: Suppose someone receives a personal inspiration. Are they to keep it to themselves? If not, how would they share it? Is writing down these inspirations a bad idea?

 

[1watchman]

An unhistorical position. How do you reconcile it with proven historic evidence?

No problem ---the Word of God is historic evidence, and the ONLY authority for Christian faith (elementary).

 

[kellhus]

No problem ---the Word of God is historic evidence, and the ONLY authority for Christian faith (elementary).

You don't get to call that elementary, and take it as given, because that is being challenged.

Personally, I think that leads to a rather simplistic and childish view of Christianity and reality. The Bible, which I assume is what you mean by the Word of God even though that is a title belonging to the Master, does not exist in a void. It is defined by apostolic tradition.

 

[Knee V]

You don't get to call that elementary, and take it as given, because that is being challenged.

Personally, I think that leads to a rather simplistic and childish view of Christianity and reality. The Bible, which I assume is what you mean by the Word of God even though that is a title belonging to the Master, does not exist in a void. It is defined by apostolic tradition.

I agree. The Word of God is Christ, nor a book. Also, in reality there is no such thong as "the Bible". Rather, we have "the Scriptures", multiple independent works that are all the product of the Holy Spirit working through His people. God did not give is a book - He gave us Himself and each other. The writings are a product of that and can only be understood in thst context. The Scriptures are subject to the Church, not vice versa. It is the Church, not a book, which is the pillar and ground of Truth.

 

[Resha Caner]

The Scriptures are subject to the Church, not vice versa. It is the Church, not a book, which is the pillar and ground of Truth.

Considering your use of metaphor here I won't claim I know exactly what you mean, but I would say the Word (i.e. God) is the pillar of Truth. It then becomes a matter of how the Word manifests the expression of truth in this world.

I'm somewhat familiar with the EO position on this: the whole Church, Tradition, Scripture thing. Yet, while I agree the Church plays a role, I've found explanations of "Church" by those EO members with which I've discussed it to be nebulous and shifting. As such, it doesn't seem to me something we can hang "Truth" on. It seems more of a nice idea than something with any real efficacy.

 

[PaladinValer]

No problem ---the Word of God is historic evidence, and the ONLY authority for Christian faith (elementary).

I'm sorry, your position is not historic because your interpretation contradicts those of the first few centuries. Therefore, it is not an orthodox Christian interpretation but heterodox at least.

This new position is also not an authentically orthodox Christian position either because it too contradicts the written primary evidence we have.

 

[Knee V]

Considering your use of metaphor here I won't claim I know exactly what you mean, but I would say the Word (i.e. God) is the pillar of Truth. It then becomes a matter of how the Word manifests the expression of truth in this world.

I'm somewhat familiar with the EO position on this: the whole Church, Tradition, Scripture thing. Yet, while I agree the Church plays a role, I've found explanations of "Church" by those EO members with which I've discussed it to be nebulous and shifting. As such, it doesn't seem to me something we can hang "Truth" on. It seems more of a nice idea than something with any real efficacy.

What did Paul mean when he said that the church is the pillar and ground of truth?

 

[Resha Caner]

What did Paul mean when he said that the church is the pillar and ground of truth?

I don't claim to have the entire Bible memorized, so a citation would have helped. Regardless, it appears you are referring to 1 Timothy 3:15.

As I said, I wasn't familiar with the metaphor, nor am I familiar with the verse. However, I do need to point out a certain irony here - that you are using Scripture to support the idea that the Church is the pillar. If you need Scripture to prove that ... well, anyway now we have some context.

I emphasized "the" because my ESV translation says the church is "a" pillar: i.e. one of several rather than the only one. I'm not sure if that is the original intent of the Greek - I would have to dig into that - regardless, it raises some questions. Looking at the context of the verse, it seems merely to be saying that Timothy shouldn't strike out on his own and think he is the sole possessor of truth. He needs the help of the church. But note that Paul mentions a specific reason for writing to Timothy, and the context almost seems to imply the writing is a surer guide - that the church is only a help against slipping. So, I don't see the verse saying "church = truth" or "church = repository of truth". In fact, as I mentioned, I'm not even sure if Paul is referring to the specific church where Timothy is located or the larger "Church" with a capital C.

As such, it seems to me that all this is saying is that being engaged with fellow believers is an aid to prevent falling into error. The verse fits just fine with a sola scriptura view, because, as I've said already, the Church definitely has a role.

 

[Albion]

What did Paul mean when he said that the church is the pillar and ground of truth?

He meant that all of us, the people of God, the household of God, the church in the truest sense, are the bulwark against false teachings.