What is "The Bible," and Why?

[Lotar]

As far as I know, all Protestants accept the first four councils.

 

[JVAC]

As far as I know, all Protestants accept the first four councils.

I think that is a pre-requisite . There are just certain things that you must accept to actually be protestant and the first councils are one of them. Or else the Mormons could claim to be protestant .

 

[RhetorTheo]

First, the Roman Catholic Church is not the same as the catholic Church that originally set the NT cannon.

Sola scriptura does not exclude the use of tradition. All it says is that tradition must agree with scripture and that all required doctrine must have a scriptural basis.

Here's a little information about the whole deal.


http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/

Okay, I see how you can use tradition under Sola Scriptura, assuming it agrees with scripture and has a scriptural basis. But in the "Church of Old," before the NT canon was finalized, the only scripture was the OT, and not only do the NT teachings not always accord with the OT, they often contradict it ("You have heard it said... but I say unto you...") Thus, under this doctrine, you would have to reject the NT canon because the early Church was establishing new doctrine that contradicted the scripture (ie, the OT). So, I still don't understand how this supports belief in the NT canon without a belief in the Catholic Church.

You distinguish between the catholic Church and the Catholic Church, but the Catholic and Orthodox churches today are collectively what you call the "catholic Church." I'm not sure what you mean by that, unless you mean that Protestants rely on all teachings of the Church up until 1054 but not after?

 

[RhetorTheo]

I was not aware that all Protestants accept the first four church councils. That doesn't seem to be consistent with Sola Scriptura to me. Do you mean that you accept the authority of the first four church councils, or that you just happen to agree with the first four councils?

 

[ChoirDir]

I would like to ask what Protestants disagree with in the 5, 6, and 7th councils?

 

[JVAC]

Okay, so do Protestants believe that the moral teachings of the early church fathers (the "Church of Old") can be relied upon for doctrine, such as the role of Mary and what constitutes scripture, but at some later date the Church became corrupted and it can no longer be relied upon? Among the teachings in the "Church of Old," how do you know which parts to believe when there is a conflict between the bishops? And how does this mesh with the doctrine of "sola scriptura"?

I cannot speak for all protestants here, because when we get into Mary not all of them hold the same stand point. The Lutheran Church does infact honor her, however it holds back from making her the center of attention. We don't put as much store in her abilities, because we reason that we all have Christ's ear as much as she does.

We have the creeds for that (conflict of Bishops), I will stop here, because I realised this post after I posted on the creeds, so I'll check for an update.

 

[JVAC]

I was not aware that all Protestants accept the first four church councils. That doesn't seem to be consistent with Sola Scriptura to me. Do you mean that you accept the authority of the first four church councils, or that you just happen to agree with the first four councils?

We agree with thier form, they weren't just unilateral papal actions. We agree that the early church was a sincere church. We agree that they were a pious church. However we do realize that the church lost it's way. We accept thier authority not by just apostolic succession but by thier faith.

Might I ask you to define your understanding of Sola Scriptura? I am not sure we have the same deffinition.

 

[RhetorTheo]

Sola Scriptura: from the (non-mainline) Protestants I knew, they would only believe what is in the Bible. There have no need to look at any Church teachings or traditions, and in fact those are often looked upon with derision. The truth is whatever is in the Bible, and whatever is inconsistent with the Bible is considered false. Whatever occurs in churches that is not in the Bible is called "the works of men," and it's discarded.

Sola Scriptura means "solely Scripture" and is the only biblical position, but also is the only logical position. If believers do not follow the Bible alone then the fact is that are to some degree following fallible men instead of God.

http://www.bible-truth.org/SolaScriptura.html

 

[Lotar]

I would like to ask what Protestants disagree with in the 5, 6, and 7th councils?

I really don't know enough about the councils to elaborate.

The Lutheran stance is that all seven are authoritive in as much as they are compatible with scripture.

 

[RhetorTheo]

The Lutheran stance is that all seven are authoritive in as much as they are compatible with scripture.

Isn't everything anyone says authoritative in as much as it is compatible with scripture? That's really not saying much. If that's all the authority given to the views of the early Church, then it's not enough to establish the Bible on.

Perhaps you mean the councils are authoritative as much as they don't clearly and explicitly contradict scripture (ie, where scripture is silent, you can rely on the church councils)?

Obviously, once you have the Bible, you can use that as your standard. My question deals with the foundation for the belief in the Bible in the first place. Is the Bible believed true, and believed to be the canon, merely because members of the early Church said so?

 

[Lotar]

Okay, I see how you can use tradition under Sola Scriptura, assuming it agrees with scripture and has a scriptural basis. But in the "Church of Old," before the NT canon was finalized, the only scripture was the OT, and not only do the NT teachings not always accord with the OT, they often contradict it ("You have heard it said... but I say unto you...") Thus, under this doctrine, you would have to reject the NT canon because the early Church was establishing new doctrine that contradicted the scripture (ie, the OT). So, I still don't understand how this supports belief in the NT canon without a belief in the Catholic Church.

The NT canon was based on who wrote it.

You distinguish between the catholic Church and the Catholic Church, but the Catholic and Orthodox churches today are collectively what you call the "catholic Church." I'm not sure what you mean by that, unless you mean that Protestants rely on all teachings of the Church up until 1054 but not after?

I can't really speak for Protestants as a whole. The Lutherans rely on Church teachings up until 1054 and then from 1513 on. But, the teachings of any man, even the Church fathers, are fallible so they cannot be taken as authoritive on their own. Scripture is the standard by which all tradition must be measured against.

 

[RhetorTheo]

The NT canon was based on who wrote it.


I can't really speak for Protestants as a whole. The Lutherans rely on Church teachings up until 1054 and then from 1513 on. But, the teachings of any man, even the Church fathers, are fallible so they cannot be taken as authoritive on their own. Scripture is the standard by which all tradition must be measured against.

How do you know that the early Church wasn't fallible when it selected which books were scripture? It wasn't entirely clear who wrote them back then, and still isn't today. There were gospels with apostles' names on them rejected, and many scholars question who wrote the gospels. I read one scholar who said the only thing that can be said with certainty about the authorship of the gospels is that none of them were written by the person whose name it bears.

 

[ChoirDir]

Rhetor, I think the answer lies in that Protestants only accept the first 4 EC's. The Bible as we know it was formulated by then. Most will agree that the Bible was canonized around 400AD. With all Churches that have divided there is a point that each do not recognize the other's source of authority. This can be seen by the split between Catholics and Orthodox. Orthodox only recognize the 7 ECs. But the reformation came later than 1054 or 451 (4th EC). So if the Protestant recognize the 1st 4 EC's then it would be logical as to why they accept the Bible. What doesn't make sense is the rejection of any councils which occured up to the split.

 

[JVAC]

Okay, I see how you can use tradition under Sola Scriptura, assuming it agrees with scripture and has a scriptural basis. But in the "Church of Old," before the NT canon was finalized, the only scripture was the OT, and not only do the NT teachings not always accord with the OT, they often contradict it ("You have heard it said... but I say unto you...") Thus, under this doctrine, you would have to reject the NT canon because the early Church was establishing new doctrine that contradicted the scripture (ie, the OT). So, I still don't understand how this supports belief in the NT canon without a belief in the Catholic Church.

You distinguish between the catholic Church and the Catholic Church, but the Catholic and Orthodox churches today are collectively what you call the "catholic Church." I'm not sure what you mean by that, unless you mean that Protestants rely on all teachings of the Church up until 1054 but not after?

The new testament didn't contradict the Old, it fulfilled it!

Matt 5:17

The Old Testament supports what happens in the New testament. They are not contracictory. What is contradictory is the the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law. This St. Paul explains in his Epistle to the Romans, "Therefore, Love is the fulfillment of the Law."(13:10)

The argument that they aren't complementary is false and doesn't hold. Rather, the Prophets confirm the validity of the New Testament.

 

[Lotar]

How do you know that the early Church wasn't fallible when it selected which books were scripture? It wasn't entirely clear who wrote them back then, and still isn't today. There were gospels with apostles' names on them rejected, and many scholars question who wrote the gospels. I read one scholar who said the only thing that can be said with certainty about the authorship of the gospels is that none of them were written by the person whose name it bears.

Well, if that's true, then it doesn't speak very highly of tradition either. It seems to me that those living before the sack of Rome and the later sack of Constantinople would have much more information to go off of than today's scolars.

Perhaps the early Church was fallible when it made it's choices, I don't know. I believe they got it right. There are points about the self-authenticating nature of scripture, though I wouldn't give that any weight if it wasn't for the tradition to back it up.

One thing I read that explains our thinking a little:

Q. Since Lutherans believe that authority comes from "scripture alone," and they view scripture as inerrant, would Lutherans be considered "fundamentalists?"

A. The term "fundamentalist" is used in a variety of ways and has a number of possible definitions, so whether or not it may be applied in some sense to LCMS Lutherans depends largely on how it is defined. Generally speaking, however, LCMS Lutherans have disassociated themselves from this term as it has been historically used in Protestantism because Lutherans approach the issue of the authority of Scripture quite differently than most "fundamentalist" Protestant groups and churches.

For example, for most "fundamentalists," acceptance of Scripture's authority comes first, and faith in Christ is based on faith in the Bible's inerrancy. For Lutherans, the reverse is true: faith in Christ comes first as a miraculous work of God's Spirit through the means of grace. Our view of the Bible then results from our faith in the Gospel.

It follows from this that for Lutherans, acceptance of Scripture's authority is a matter of faith, not of "proof" at the level of sheer intellect. Accordingly, Lutherans (unlike many fundamentalist groups) do not attempt to "demonstrate" the inerrancy of Scripture on the basis of historical or rational evidence or arguments. Instead, Lutherans focus on proclaiming the Gospel and trust that faith in the Bible will follow from faith in Christ. For Lutherans the Gospel is always of primary concern and is viewed as the central message of the Scriptures, while fundamentalists tend to view the Gospel simply as one of several "fundamental" truths (of equal value) contained in the Bible.

 

[JVAC]

Rhetor, I think the answer lies in that Protestants only accept the first 4 EC's. The Bible as we know it was formulated by then. Most will agree that the Bible was canonized around 400AD. With all Churches that have divided there is a point that each do not recognize the other's source of authority. This can be seen by the split between Catholics and Orthodox. Orthodox only recognize the 7 ECs. But the reformation came later than 1054 or 451 (4th EC). So if the Protestant recognize the 1st 4 EC's then it would be logical as to why they accept the Bible. What doesn't make sense is the rejection of any councils which occured up to the split.

Assumeably, I think that almost all Protestant churches accept the first seven councils because, they even accept 'filioque' which is not accepted in the east. Generally all protestants up to that point have retained the Church's teachings. I haven't extensivly read the later three councils so I am not sure what they are about (Like Lotar) but I am assuming that we do agree to them, for we all agree on 'filioque'.

 

[CCWoody]

If you are not Catholic, do you accept the books of the Catholic New Testament as scripture because the Catholic Church says so? If you accept those exact same books as scripture for another reason, what reason is that? If you don't accept some of the Catholic New Testament as scripture (eg, some reject Revelation), what books do you reject and why? And do you accept any books as scripture outside of the books of the Catholic New Testament (eg, some accept the Gospel of Thomas or A Course in Miracles)?

Thanks!

It is pretty arrogant to call the NT Catholic, don't you think?

I'll answer and raise the stakes. I accept the NT as the word of God, not because a Catholic told me so, for this would be no different than a Mormon telling me the scriptures are such and such, but because they are self-evidently obviously true and "God Breathed." They testify to their own authenticity and Holy Spirit testifies to their truth.

So, raising the stakes: "What additional authority and authenticity do you think the Catholic Church confered upon the Scriptures that was better than the authority and authenticity already conferred upon them by the Holy Spirit?"

 

[Lotar]

Rhetor, I think the answer lies in that Protestants only accept the first 4 EC's. The Bible as we know it was formulated by then. Most will agree that the Bible was canonized around 400AD. With all Churches that have divided there is a point that each do not recognize the other's source of authority. This can be seen by the split between Catholics and Orthodox. Orthodox only recognize the 7 ECs. But the reformation came later than 1054 or 451 (4th EC). So if the Protestant recognize the 1st 4 EC's then it would be logical as to why they accept the Bible. What doesn't make sense is the rejection of any councils which occured up to the split.

I agree, I don't understand why some just outright reject the other three. One thing to understand is that we view councils differently.

8. Luther on Councils. M. Luther* subordinated councils to the Word of God, which is self-sufficient (WA 50, 614–615, 631). The truth of the Gospel cannot be est. by councils (WA-T 3, 149). The Holy Spirit is not bound by conciliar decisions (WA 15, 584; 39 I, 186). Since articles of faith, doctrine, and works existed before councils, the latter cannot est. or decree doctrine, but, as all men, must show that what they say is in harmony with God's Word (WA 21, 471; WA-T 4, 457–458); if their pronouncements show such harmony, they are accepted for the Word's sake (WA 8, 57–58; 10 lb. 337; 17 II, 29; 39 I, 187; 50, 551–552, 604, 618). As individual mem, so also councils erred. (WA 2, 405–406; WA-Br 1, 470–471; WA-Br 3, 374)

Luther pointed out that the Holy Spirit dwells in the hearts of believers, and if council mems. are selected from the people of God, there is a true council ruled by the Spirit (WA 50, 643–644). Luther favored a free (WA 54, 206–207) Christian (WA 54, 212–213) council (WA 47, 127; 50, 288 to 289; 52, 760; 54, 208). Such a true council is a gathering of pious people for the preservation among them of the pure Word (WA 51, 529). The duty of judging doctrine is a matter for all Christians (WA 45, 380), and hence councils of such Christians also judge doctrine and works and arrange externals (WA-T 3, 694–695). Thus Luther opposed the “pope-in-council” (“head and mems.”) idea of Romanists (WA 52, 760; 54, 206–209).

 

[ChoirDir]

Assumeably, I think that almost all Protestant churches accept the first seven councils because, they even accept 'filioque' which is not accepted in the east. Generally all protestants up to that point have retained the Church's teachings. I haven't extensivly read the later three councils so I am not sure what they are about (Like Lotar) but I am assuming that we do agree to them, for we all agree on 'filioque'.

Interesting that you bring up the Filioque because at the 3rd Council Ephesus the following was approved.
1. If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of God (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh, let him be anathema.
2. It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea.
3. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be anathematised.
#3 is the Orthodox argument against the Filioque since the West was using it to combat Arianism in Spain.
Now wouldn't #1 not sit right with Protestants on the whole Mary issue.
I am also curious about the 7th EC since it restored the use of Icons in the Church which many Protestants view as idolotry.

 

[Lotar]

Assumeably, I think that almost all Protestant churches accept the first seven councils because, they even accept 'filioque' which is not accepted in the east. Generally all protestants up to that point have retained the Church's teachings. I haven't extensivly read the later three councils so I am not sure what they are about (Like Lotar) but I am assuming that we do agree to them, for we all agree on 'filioque'.

Most Protestants don't accept the other three. Lutherans do, but we do not accept everything from them as authoritive, like veneration of icons. Any part of the councils that are based in scripture are authoritive.