Protestant Christian dilemma

[Albion]

The issue with this is, how do we determine the scope and canon of Scripture?

We either stand with the decisions of the Church Universal made by the councils in antiquity...or we're refuting much of what Christianity is all about, not just this particular issue.

 

[Fervent]

We either stand with the decisions of the Church Universal made by the councils in antiquity...or we're refuting much of what Christianity is all about, not just this particular issue.

So...tradition, not Sola Scriptura?

 

[trophy33]

So...tradition, not Sola Scriptura?

Sola Scriptura is a protestant tradition made from historical necessity. The Roman Catholic Church was teaching and doing so much nonsense in medieval era that Sola Scriptura was the best treatment at the time.

 

[Albion]

So...tradition, not Sola Scriptura?

I was not speaking of tradition.

Sola Scriptura is a protestant tradition.

You might say that to believe in Sola Scriptura is a "protestant tradition," but if you do, you're not speaking of Tradition, i.e. Sacred Tradition, by which some churches determine essential doctrine.

And in any case, your point would only be that it's traditional or customary for protestants to believe in the ultimate authority of Scripture, meaning that it's still Sola Scriptura which is authoritative.

 

[Fervent]

I was not speaking of tradition.

Certainly, but it's something necessary in addition to Scripture in council decisions.

 

[Fervent]

Sola Scriptura is a protestant tradition made from historical necessity. The Roman Catholic Church was teaching and doing so much nonsense in medieval era that Sola Scriptura was the best treatment at the time.

The primary issue with that is the declaration of "Sola Scriptura" also included a re-evaluation of what made up Scripture and the movement of several books that have a history of inclusion to an appendix(and later removal when it became too costly to print the appendix).

 

[Albion]

Certainly, but it's something necessary in addition to Scripture in council decisions.

No, it's the council's decision that is what is being adhered to by us, by the churches since antiquity. For example, the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed is widely accepted as a correct or sufficient statement of the Christian faith (and by this forum, too) but the Creed itself cites Scripture as it's source and never mentions "Tradition."

So, it's the Church Universal that has fashioned the statement of belief. We can junk the whole think and make up our own doctrines, of course, and that's what most cults do, but at some point we either have to accept that what the church of Christ decided was probably correct or else call into question almost everything that Christianity has espoused for 2000 years.

 

[Albion]

Certainly, but it's something necessary in addition to Scripture in council decisions.

Not really, although I'd be interested in why you think it is.

 

[Albion]

The primary issue with that is the declaration of "Sola Scriptura" also included a re-evaluation of what made up Scripture and the movement of several books that have a history of inclusion to an appendix(and later removal when it became too costly to print the appendix).

There's no 'issue' with that. The books which both Protestants and Catholics removed or altered in the 16th century had only been included provisionally by the councils when the canon of the Bible was determined in the 4th century. That inclusion was made because there was no agreement at the time, nor had there EVER been such, on whether these were inspired or not. Everything about them suggests that they are not.

 

[Fervent]

Not really, although I'd be interested in why you think it is.

Since Scripture isn't defined, except by looking at church history(and even there it requires debate) it is encumbent that some kind of tradition establish the bounds of Scripture. Otherwise we'll have people calling the acts of peter, the apocalypse of paul, the infancy gospel of thomas, the gospel according to Mary, etc be tossed into the mix and people claiming it is all Scripture. In fact, the New Testament is essentially nothing more than apostolic tradition codified and canonized.

I don't mean this to be a knock on drawing doctrine from textual analysis, it's simply that the discussion is more complex than simply tradition or Scripture as Scripture is dependent upon tradition for defining its scope.

 

[Fervent]

There's no 'issue' with that. The books which both Protestants and Catholics removed or altered in the 16th century had only been included provisionally by the councils when the canon of the Bible was determined in the 4th century. That inclusion was made because there was no agreement at the time, nor had there EVER been such, on whether these were inspired or not. Everything about them suggests that they are not.

I fail to see how it can't be an issue to say only Scripture while standing and curating what is to be included in Scripture.

 

[Albion]

Since Scripture isn't defined, except by looking at church history(and even there it requires debate) it is encumbent that some kind of tradition establish the bounds of Scripture.

Not at all. Why would you think that?

.Otherwise we'll have people calling the acts of peter, the apocalypse of paul, the infancy gospel of thomas, the gospel according to Mary, etc be tossed into the mix and people claiming it is all Scripture.

There ARE such people. According to what I'm reading from you, all these works and many more like them, which had their followers in the early days of the church, ought to have been included since, well, the acceptance of them was a matter of tradition. The fact that they were inconsistent with other Bible books or were of dubious origin...none of that would have mattered. "Tradition" would have made them Bible books.

I don't mean this to be a knock on drawing doctrine from textual analysis, it's simply that the discussion is more complex than simply tradition or Scripture as Scripture is dependent upon tradition for defining its scope.

 

[Albion]

I fail to see how it can't be an issue to say only Scripture while standing and curating what is to be included in Scripture.

You probably are doing what I think myst33 also did, which is to confuse Scripture Alone as the authority with recognizing Scripture as the authority.

 

[trophy33]

The primary issue with that is the declaration of "Sola Scriptura" also included a re-evaluation of what made up Scripture and the movement of several books that have a history of inclusion to an appendix(and later removal when it became too costly to print the appendix).

It came later. I have read many reformation writings and they quote today's deuterocanonical books as Scripture and do not make any distinction.

I would say the exclusion of those books did not come with reformation, but with the idea that the masoretic text and canon is the right one.

 

[Fervent]

Not at all. Why would you think that?

Oh? Where is the inspired index handed down from God?

There ARE such people. According to what I'm reading from you, all these works and many more like them, which had their followers in the early days of the church, ought to have been included since, well, the acceptance of them was a matter of tradition. The fact that they were inconsistent with other Bible books or were of dubious origin...none of that would have mattered. "Tradition" would have made them Bible books.

These books are excluded because we can look to history and see the early canons rejected them. Tradition is nothing more than the consensus of the early church and council decisions.

 

[Fervent]

It came later. I have read many reformation writings and they quote today's deuterocanonical books as Scripture and do not make any distinction.

I would say the exclusion of those books did not came with reformation, but with the idea that the masoretic text and canon is the right one.

It began with Luther, who also wanted to relegate Hebrews, James, Revelation and other books to an appendix as well but the reformers pushed back.

 

[trophy33]

It began with Luther, who also wanted to relegate Hebrews, James, Revelation and other books to an appendix as well but the reformers pushed back.

But reformation is 200 years older than Luther. However Luther is the most known figure, yes. Germany was the most influental country in Europe.

 

[Fervent]

You probably are doing what I think myst33 also did, which is to confuse Scripture Alone as the authority with recognizing Scripture as the authority.

The authority is God, Scripture is simply a vessel of that authority.

 

[Fervent]

But reformation is 200 years older than Luther. However Luther is the most known figure, yes. Germany was the most influental country in Europe.

Clearly identifying when the reformation began is certainly a question worth exploring, but typically the reformation refers specifically to the magisterial reformers which began with Luther. The Hussites and such are typically considered proto-reformers.

 

[trophy33]

The Hussites and such are typically considered proto-reformers.

Yeah, maybe. Depends on the definition and terms used.