At least three groups of Christians – Eastern Orthodox, traditional Protestants, and liberal Catholics – assail the papacy by arguing that the Church Councils should be our highest authority, an idea called “concilarism.” It’s a good argument – after all, Councils can be infallible, they’re part of the Magisterium, and so forth, so don’t Catholics go too far in declaring that only those Councils accepted by the pope are Magisterial? Doesn’t that eliminate the entire rationale behind a Council? On Friday night, a Calvinist raised this argument to one of my friends, who responded with one of the best arguments I’ve ever heard on the subject.
He pointed to the existence of the so-called “Robber Council,” the Second Council of Ephesus, to show that this is what the Church (both East and West) historically understood. The Eastern Orthodox, along with many traditional Protestants, accept the so-called Seven Ecumenical Councils:
- First Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D.
- First Council of Constantinople, 381 A.D.
- Council of Ephesus, 431 A.D.
- Council of Chalcedon, 451 A.D.
- Second Council of Constantinople, 553 A.D.
- Third Council of Constantinople, 680-81 A.D.
- Second Council of Nicaea, 787 A.D.
But in between # 3 and # 4, in 449 A.D., was the Second Council of Ephesus. It’s remarkable, in that it attempted to declare the Monophysite heresy to be the truth, on behalf of the Church. In the original Council of Ephesus, a Monophysite priest named Eutyches was condemned for refusing to acknowledge the dual natures of Christ. But in the Second Council of Ephesus, the Robber Council declared that Eutyches was the orthodox one, condemning his opponents, and declaring that Christ only has one nature. Now, if both the Council of Ephesus and the Second Council of Ephesus are valid Councils, we’d have a serious problem: the Church would have just proclaimed heresy, contradicting both Herself and Scripture.
But that’s not the case: we know the Second Council of Ephesus is invalid, and have known it from the start. As the council was closing, the papal legate (the pope’s representative to the Council), Hilarius, expressed the judgment of Rome: “Contradicitur!” With a single word, he declared the Council invalid in the name of the pope. Leo himself confirmed this, and it’s from him that we have the name “Robber Council.”
There are a few things remarkable about this:
First, it’s only on the basis of the papacy that we can reject the Second Council as an invalid Robber Council. That is, it’s on this basis alone that we can coherently say why this isn’t a Council at all. After all, the Robber Council was attended by about 130 Bishops, just a little less than the First Council of Constantinople, which is considered an Ecumenical Council. And the Robber Council was drawn from a wider swath of Christendom than First Constantinople. So by all appearances, it was an Ecumenical Council. And you can’t say it wasn’t an Ecumenical Council just because it was heretical, or later condemned. That’s circular logic — a Council isn’t a Council if you happen to think it’s right. So the only reason we can say that the Robber Council wasn’t a true Council, rather than a true Council that decreed error, is by recognizing that the Council.
Second, the Eastern Orthodox accepted the Pope’s authority in declaring the Second Council of Ephesus to be invalid. They also deny the Second Council of Ephesus, and refer to it in Pope Leo’s terms: as the Robber Council. Historically, the reason the Eastern Orthodox rejected it as a Council wasn’t that it was wrong, but because it had been condemned by the papal legate, and then the pope.
Third, those condemned by the Council looked to the Pope to find out the Council’s Validity. Bishop Theodoret of Cyprus, one of the men condemned by the Robber Council, appealed to the Pope, and said, “I await your sentence, and if you command me to abide by my condemnation, I will abide by it.” This is an Eastern Bishop acknowledging that the Pope, and not an unapproved Council, has the final say.
So in the end, concilarism is certainly false. If Councils don’t need papal approval to be valid, then we have to recognize and accept all the Councils. And that’s impossible, since the Robber Council explicitly contradicts the Council of Ephesus, and it was explicitly condemned by the Council of Chalcedon. You’d have to declare the Holy Spirit contradictory to cling to this notion.
Two subsequent Councils make these points even clearer. First, the Council of Chalcedon was convened precisely to establish that Christ has two natures. This Council is recognized by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, and many Protestants; and all orthodox Christians would say its Christology is correct. After reading into the record St. Leo’s “tome,” his defense of the dual natures of Christ, the bishops cried out, “Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles.” It’s an affirmation of the Petrine ministry, and the headship of the pope, and it was recorded in the proceedings of the Council. And Pope Hadrian (Leo’s successor, who had served as the papal legate at the Robber Council) sent a letter discussing the authority of the pope over the Church, which the Council accepted. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Tarasius, then declares the pope’s letter to be true and accurate. So in the Ecumenical Council refuting the Robber Council, accepted by Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants alike, the papacy is established quite plainly.
The second Council worth mentioning is another false Council, the Quinisext Council. It was held in the East, and accepted by the Eastern Orthodox, but rejected by the papacy. The East is careful to recognize it, not as an additional Council, but as additional canons to be added to existing Councils (this way, they can say that they affirm just the first Seven Ecumenical Councils). Two things make it remarkable. First, Basil of Gortyna presented himself as the “papal legate,” although he was not. The fact that it was viewed as necessary that there be a papal legate speaks volumes. Second, the Byzantine Emperor, Justinian II, was outraged that the pope refused to accept the council, and actually sent an officer to Rome to kidnap him. Italian troops came down from Ravenna (then the capital of the Western Roman Empire) and stopped him. That the pope, and he alone, was viewed as a significant enough figure to send troops to kidnap him a thousand miles away is telling. If papal approval of the Council was unnecessary, why bother trying to arrest him?
We always look to the Word, alone for answers in matters of faith and life.
Since Councils and Popes are fallible men, or made up of fallibel men, we believe that the source Itself, the Word, is a better choice that we remain faithful to that Word.
Of course I know that you certainly disagree with that, but that is the reason that we Lutherans(some of us anyway), look to the Word alone for our guidence.
Old Adam,
(1) When you say “the Word,” do you mean Jesus, or Scripture, or the Gospel?
(2) Assuming you mean Scripture, on what guidance do you follow Scripture alone?
(3) And on what guidance do you know which Books comprise Scripture?
In Christ,
Joe
Joe, I think you’ll be shocked to know I’m on your side after my last post and this current post, but I feel a duty to answer questions you ask or at least raise a few of my own.
You said, “If papal approval of the Council was unnecessary, why bother trying to arrest him?” There is at least one basic reason that I could personally conceive: His political influence was jeopardized by disapproval of the papacy? I’m sure there are several other conceivable questions.
I think your articles are wonderful. I’m just afraid that sometimes your socratic rhetoric will deceive readers that are uneducated on particular subjects.
Also, I’m an Evangelical Protestant currently on the conversion path to the RCC. I’ve converted doctrinally, but I’m not in full communion yet. What’s interesting to me is that I’m currently in law school and that I have lived in Kansas City for 17 years and happen to be a huge Royals fan myself.
When we say, “The Word” we mean Jesus 1st. Then the preaching and teaching of the pure gospel and the administering of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, 2nd…and the lastly the Scriptures.
For us, we accpt the Bible as our guide to Scripture (any Bible will do)but defer to the books of the Bible and the passages of the Bible which most clearly drive Christ forward.
Yes, well, when you put it that way, obviously Catholics would say that they follow Jesus 1st, via the Apostolic Tradition (comprising Scripture, Tradition, Councils, etc.). No Christian imagines that he follows something instead of Jesus, and it is insulting and boorish to imply that a Catholic would accept your premise. The Catholic, like you, regards his confession as following Jesus 1st, and sees all the particulars of that, as being given directly by Jesus.
The purpose of Joe’s questions, was to highlight the obvious truth that Christianity doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The fact, is that we all have an interpretive hermeneutic that determines what we mean by following Jesus, and that you are just as dependent upon a traditional set of assumptions that precede your view of Jesus, as anyone else. The question, is: whose set of doctrinal assumptions is the authentic way to truly follow Christ? For, if Christ left us the Apostolic Tradition, the light of the Spirit in the Church, and the Apostolic governance of the Church under Pope and Bishops, then we follow Jesus more truly in this way, than you do with your (rather irrational) assumption that there is a direct pipeline to Jesus that could be free from error, without some authoritative and protected interpretive authority (like the Magisterium). Even what good things you have, come to you from the Catholic Church. How do you even know what belongs in Scripture? This is the point of Joe’s question: your first premises are naught but irrational assumptions. This is from a former Protestant, myself.
Brock,
No worries! Obviously, I don’t insist everyone find my arguments or rhetoric convincing.
As to your point, though, that the emperor’s “political influence was jeopardized by disapproval of the papacy,” I agree. But why would a Byzantine Emperor, living solidly in the East, and with the support of the Patriarch of Constantinople, be worried about the clout of the Bishop of Rome?
If he was worried about this particular Pope, perhaps because he was likable or holy or charismatic, the single worst approach would be to kidnap him. It’d outrage those loyal to him, and turn them against the Emperor. Killing him I could see (since he could no longer rally opposition), but kidnapping would be self-defeating.
But kidnapping makes a LOT of sense if the Emperor knows that he needs the pope’s approval, and thinks he can get it by kidnapping and probably torturing him.
My point isn’t that the Emperor personally believed in the authority of the pope, but that he acknowledged it as a political reality he had to deal with. If the pope didn’t approve the Council, then the validity of the Council was (at best) an open question. As far as I can see, this is the only reason to kidnap him, instead of killing him or ignoring him. In Christ,
Joe
Brock,
Just saw your second comment. That’s like twenty kinds of awesome. You should get in touch with Fr. Andrew. He’s out in Olathe at Prince of Peace, but probably loves the Royals more than both of us, and is who convinced me on the truth-claims of the Catholic Church many moons ago.
Old Adam,
What do you mean when you say, ” we accept the Bible as our guide to Scripture (any Bible will do)”? My question is about how you know which Books are in the Bible, and about how you know the Bible is to be your sole source of doctrine.
In Christ,
Joe
Whatever drives Christ. We accept the Bible, but we concentrate on the books that drive Christ and what He has done, is doing, and will yet do, and not the books that promote man and what he does.
A famous quote from Luther (to help illustrate) is this:
“If they use the Bible against Christ, we will use Christ against the Bible.”
Bravo! In my book, I include an argument for the Catholic Church based on ecumenical councils, though not using this particular facet as the fulcrum.
I don’t disagree with this, but bear in mind that it isn’t that simple. The Pope didn’t even attend the first few councils and his approval wasn’t required for Nicaea or Constantinople. Also, the quote “Peter has spoken trhough Leo”, in the context of the council was in relation to his statements that Christ was the Son of God (similar to the statements Peter made). In addition, the same statement is made about Cyril.
Later on, the Avignon Papacy and the Western Schism were finally settled by the Council of Constance (Basel). The council deposed John XXIII and elected Martin V. The Council demonstrated full power over the pope at that time which later popes would reject even though it is recognized that Martin V was valid. If, in fact, the Council acted outside their scope, Martin V’s election was invalid. If they acted within their jurisdiction, it proves the primacy of a council over the pope.
Just saying…it’s not always so cut and dried.
“…and not the books that promote man and what he does”
Yikes! Are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit did a poor job with some of the writers of Scripture?
I guess this approach is, at least, historically Lutheran (Luther’s issue with Revelation, James etc).
What this approach achieves is that it allows certain Scriptures to obscure others since, in the individual’s opinion, some “drive” Christ more than others.
However, this then begs the question as to the basis on which you approach the Bible in this way and even what qualifies as “driving” Christ.
But even that’s putting the cart before the horse. Even asking what makes you think you should follow Scripture alone can’t even be addressed until the fundamental question is answered: how do you know what’s Scripture and what isn’t?
For example, why should James be regarded as Scripture and 1st Clement not? What’s to stop me from ripping out Revelation from my Bible and sticking in the Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch instead (they’re significantly easier to understand!)
“Since Councils and Popes are fallible men, or made up of fallibel men, we believe that the source Itself, the Word, is a better choice that we remain faithful to that Word”
I wonder how you view the Council of Jerusalem. If that was infallible, on what basis?
Restless Pilgrim,
I do believe that the whole basis for Holy Scripture is to put Christ Jesus forward as the Savior of mankind.
That which speaks to this fact is apostolic and is worthy to be Holy Scripture.
Here’s another quote that I like from Luther regarding Scripture:
“All upright sacred books agree on one thing, that they all collectively preach and promote Christ. Likewise, the true criterion for criticizing all books is to see whether they promote Christ or not, since all scripture manifests Christ. Whatever does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even if Peter and Paul should teach it. On the other hand, whatever preaches Christ is apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod should do it!” (LW 35:396)
The Scriptures that promote man and what he does, or should be doing, we regard as law, the purpose of which is to expose our sinfulness and drive us to the Savior.
Anywho, it’s a radical take, but I happen t agree with it.
Thanks.
Restless Pilgrim,
I do believe that the whole basis for Holy Scripture is to put Christ Jesus forward as the Savior of mankind.
That which speaks to this fact is apostolic and is worthy to be Holy Scripture.
Here’s another quote that I like from Luther regarding Scripture:
“All upright sacred books agree on one thing, that they all collectively preach and promote Christ. Likewise, the true criterion for criticizing all books is to see whether they promote Christ or not, since all scripture manifests Christ. Whatever does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even if Peter and Paul should teach it. On the other hand, whatever preaches Christ is apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod should do it!” (LW 35:396)
The Scriptures that promote man and what he does, or should be doing, we regard as law, the purpose of which is to expose our sinfulness and drive us to the Savior.
Anywho, it’s a radical take, but I happen t agree with it.
Thanks.
100,000th visitor! http://flic.kr/p/9VftqH What do I win?
Old Adam,
I think Restless Pilgrim summarizes the crux of what I would say. On what basis do you know what is Gospel, and what is Scripture? How do you know what is of Christ, and what of the enemy?
Matt,
The Calvinist my friend was talking to raised the same objection: it’s false.
There was a Council which tried to depose the Pope and install a new Pope. It was the Council of Pisa, which declared Antipope Alexander V the “true” pope. This robber Council was never accepted by the actual pope, Gregory XII. The result of the Council of Pisa was that, rather than two men claiming to be pope, there were now three.
Thus, ten years later, the Council of Constance was called. This time, Pope Gregory XII offered to resign in order to heal the wound to the Church. He sent his papal legate, Prince Charles of Malatesta with an offer of resignation. The Council accepted it, deposed the two antipopes, and elected a new pope, Martin V.
So not only does the Council of Constance not prove the authority of a Council over the Pope, it undid the conciliar damage wrought by the ineffective and invalid robber Council of Pisa. They deposed John XXIII, as you said. What you don’t appear to realize is that John XXIII wasn’t recognized by the Church as a valid pope, but claimed the Council of Pisa as his basis for the papacy. That’s why, when Catholics refer to “Pope John XXIII,” we mean “Good Pope John,” who was pope from 1958-1963, not that impostor.
Devin,
What’s your book?
In Christ,
Joe.
What promotes Christ and His gospel is Holy and right.
Whatever promotes ourselves and what we should, ought, or must be doing to be acceptable in God’s eyes for righteousness sake is of the enemy. For that would make the cross of no avail.
Old Adam, based on your response to Restless Pilgrim, would you say that Mere Christianity is Scripture? I think we’d agree that it promotes Christ, right? And by the way, who gets to decide if it promotes Scripture? Again, Luther didn’t think James did, thinking he taught a ‘Gospel of works.’
Robert Ritchie,
Couldn’t have happened to a better guy! Wish I had a cool prize, and I’m impressed that you happened to notice what number visitor you were.
Joe
Joe, I think my problem is that I find your rhetoric SO convincing haha!
“My point isn’t that the Emperor personally believed in the authority of the pope, but that he acknowledged it as a political reality he had to deal with. If the pope didn’t approve the Council, then the validity of the Council was (at best) an open question. As far as I can see, this is the only reason to kidnap him, instead of killing him or ignoring him.”
I think that’s exactly what I was saying, but just because an emperor recognizes a political reality, it does not establish the canon. Recognition that the Pope weilds political influence with people established over several centuries does not necessarily mean it is right that he holds the influence.
And I will search out Fr. Andrew at some point when I am in KC! I currently live in Lincoln, Nebraska where I attend law school.
Joe,
I thought we were speaking about the Bible and what is contained therein.
Whenever someone speaks of the pure gospel of the forgiveness of sins for Jesus’ sake, it is the Word of God (He is in that speaking or writing).
The Book of James has it’s purpose. As do other books in the Bible. But as far the promoting the gospel, there are other books and verses which are far superior.
We Lutherans (not all of us, anyway) do not ascribe the same value to every book in the Bible, or to each verse in the BIble as do many Evangekicals who read the Bible literally and take it in a monochrome fashion.
Brock,
I appreciate it. You’re lucky being in Lincoln, too. Bp. Bruskewitz is solid — he’s probably my favorite American Catholic bishop.
To your main point, I think we actually agree. The emperor’s actions don’t prove he believed the pope should have that authority, but it does show that the papal authority existed — even in the East. After the Great Schism, this fact would be denied or downplayed, but the fact is, after a seemingly Ecumenical Council, all eyes were on Rome to see what the pope would do. If conciliarism were the pre-Schism Church’s view of the role of Councils, this history wouldn’t make much sense.
Old Adam,
I am speaking about the Bible and what is contained therein. I’m wondering why the Epistles of Ignatius, or 1 Clement, or Mere Christianity aren’t considered Scripture, under your definition. And I’m also wondering who gets to decide if a particular Writing “promotes Christ.”
In Christ,
Joe.
Joe,
Whatever promotes the gospel, or not is quite obvious.
Either Jesus has done it, or not.
One can have the Word of God without having to have the Bible.
“In the beginning was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God.”
See what I mean.
@Theoldadam
As a former Evangelical Protestant, I followed Solo Scriptura and adopted many of the same beliefs you are proposing today. Here’s one thing that helped me get over many of those hurdles.
Let’s pretend I spoke this sentence, but you weren’t present and only saw somebody post on facebook that I said this:
“I did not say she kissed a boy.”
This sentence was presented to me at a “7 Habits of Highly Effective Teens” workshop in highschool. The presentation required us to figure out how vital inflection was in interpretating sentences.
*Note–I could not get the HTML scripting to work so I applied … around the emphasized word.
“…I… did not say she kissed a boy” could say that I didn’t say it, but somebody else did.
“I …did not… say she kissed a boy” could be a complete denial of the claim.
“I did not …say… she kissed a boy.” could mean that I didn’t say it, but I implied it.
“I did not say …she… kissed a boy” says that it wasn’t her, but somebody else.
“I did not say she …kissed… a boy” well, you get it.
“I did not say she kissed …a… boy” connotes more than one.
“I did not say she kissed a …boy…”says it was probably a girl.
With that one simple sentence in writing, I could conceivably interpret it to mean 7 different things. It’s no wonder we have 25,000 different denominations today based on Solo Scriptura!
How could we possibly find out how I spoke the sentence “I did not say she kissed a boy”? Well, if you were present you would probably understand what I meant. Lucky for us, many of those present passed on how the word was interpreted and practiced. Some of those wrote down their explicit practices and others had disciples that wrote what they learned down. It’s important that we view how they interpreted the scriptures because they had a more pure understanding of the scripture.
It’s worth remembering that the scriptures were not necessarily written to be read, but to be spoken–some evidence may be the fact that Christ never wrote the book himself, but spoke the word to his disciples! When speaking, it’s easier to adjust the sermons to any shifts in ideology that have strayed from the originally practiced interpretation of the scripture. Otherwise, we risk readers creating their own interpretation and practice of the scriptures–Luther and following protestants.
The Church is the “Spotless Bride” of Christ…but the Church has more spots and disunity than couples who appeared on Jerry Springer. Why? Because many Christians and churches do not submit to a magisterium of interpretation.
Pray for unity 🙂
You mean the Roman Church?
I’d rather stick with the gospel, inspired and put into the gospel.
There’s just too much works centered theology in the Roman Church, which works against the gospel. Purgatory works against Christ and His sacrafice of sins on the cross.
And where in Scripture does it say that we can pay money or visit holy relics or places to lessen ours or someone else’s time in purgatory?
I’m not saying that you shouldn’t buy into it, that is your business. I’m just saying that I don’t buy it.
‘Put into the BIble’
(I meant to write)
Old Adam,
This is what I’m talking about. One of the passages which best supports Purgatory is 2 Maccabees 12:42-46, in which Judas Maccabeus prays for the dead. As I mentioned here, the early Church, those who heard the Gospel preached first- and second-hand, believed that this was Scripture. Christ celebrates Hannukah, a Festival established only in 1 and 2 Maccabees.
But you deny it’s Scripture. Our repeated question has been, on what basis? To deny it as Scripture because you don’t like the doctrines it teaches means you’re not basing your beliefs off the Bible; you’re basing your Bible off your beliefs.
Sure, if you cut out anything from the Bible that contradicts Luther’s sola fide, you can make Luther’s sola fide Biblical. But surely that’s not the way Christians have ever approached Scripture – we come as students, in humility, instead. Otherwise, you could prove or disprove anything. If you want to get a divorce, just declare all the Scriptural passages which forbid divorce to be legalistic, and therefore, un-Scriptural.
Surely you see how circular your argument is? Your opposition to Catholicism is that She has doctrines you don’t. She bases these off of Scriptures, which you reject. Your only authority for rejecting these Scriptures is that they disagree with your doctrines. But that approach isn’t humility, and taken seriously, you place yourself past all Christian correction, and subject yourself to no Church but the one you already agree with.
In Christ,
Joe.
Yes, I did mean the RCC.
Faith and Works: http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/faworks.htm
Purgatory and why it makes sense: http://www.catholic.com/library/Purgatory.asp
I’m unsure on the time reduction in Purgatory and don’t have any material to provide on the subject ATM.
God Bless,
Brock
Purgatory may make sense to you, but to me it makes the cross of Christ not accomplish everything.
I believe that when Jesus said, “It is finished”, that he meant it.
This discussion is really great for it does highlight the major differences in our theology and why I would not consider going back to the Roman Church.
I have to head out and do some things, but I really appreciate the opportunity to give you another view of the Christian faith.
Whether you agree or not is not important, but that Jesus Christ and His gospel is lifted up is the main thing.
Take care, my friends!
Old Adam,
I agree that it’s good to be able to openly talk about these things.
In 1 Peter 4:8, St. Peter says, “Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.” If our love doesn’t render the accomplishment of the Cross incomplete, by covering sins, then it seems to me that neither does Purgatory. the problem appears to be with your view of the role of the Cross, rather than with Scripture.
On what Jesus meant by “It is Finished” (John 19:30):
“So what’s finished? Not, as some Protestants claim, the work of salvation: Romans 4:25 says that Jesus ‘was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.’ The Resurrection hasn’t happened yet, so that’s not finished. No, what’s finished is the long fore-shadowed Paschal Feast and Sacrifice. “
More here
God bless, and I hope to hear from you again soon,
Joe
Hi Joe,
Great discussion going on here. My book is called “If Protestantism is True” and was just published a few weeks ago. Here’s the amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/If-Protestantism-True-Reformation-Meets/dp/0615445306
I’ve been sharing several of your blog posts on the book’s facebook fan page, because providentially they have touched on several of the arguments I make in my book.
The book also mentions Luther’s struggles with the canon, the effects of which we see here as theoldadam mentions the “canon within the canon” that some Lutherans still hold to.
God bless,
Devin
Hey Joe:
What was your church background before you submitted to the claims of the Catholic Church?
I was in Chesterfield, MO just a week ago at an IT conference. I would have loved the opportunity to meet Fr. Andrew.
Thanks,
Dan
I’m a cradle Catholic, but didn’t believe a lot of what the Church teaches. Frankly, I’d never been taught a lot of what the Church teaches.
So I was a pretty nominal Catholic for a long time, with just enough glow to the embers to get me to ask questions now and again. Fortunately, Fr. Andrew was there to (with the help of the Holy Spirit) fan those dying embers into something much more potent.
“Purgatory may make sense to you, but to me it makes the cross of Christ not accomplish everything.”
There were two main ideas which turned around my thinking on Purgatory (I previously denied it), but I’d just like to share one…
I have two family members who both profess faith in Christ, yet they refuse to talk to one another after a falling out several years ago. Could these two people exist in their current state before the Throne of Grace in Heaven? Obviously, no. Something has to happen to them before that point. This “something” is what Catholics call Purgatory.
But back to the fundamental issue…on what basis do you declare one thing Scripture and another not?
For example, you talk about Jesus saying “It is finished”. On what basis do you believe He said this?
I’m baaaack!
Yes, we Lutherans do hold to the canon within the canon.
Yes, I do believe that Jesus meant that His mission to forgive sinners on the cross was accomplished and finished. His resurrection was the answer to his prayer for forgiveness ao all those who killed him (all of us – because of sin)
I believe Jesus did say that because it is recorded in Scripture that He said it.
When we look at Romans we see that we are justified apart from works, by grace through faith.
Romans is one that Lutherans are quite fond of because of all the Christ centered language in it. Galatians is another favorite.
Anywho, now I have to cook dinner!
Sheeesh…
Catholics are always acting like the fact that Protestants don’t have a hierarchical system that can tell them for sure which books are inspired means that they can’t think any books are inspired. But this is an obviously false inference is it not?
I mean, how did anyone know which books were inspired before Christ? Could a non-Jew have won the argument about Genesis’s inspiration by saying “You don’t have a Divinely protected teaching authority saying that, therefore it is false!”?
If not, can we drop this nonsense about the canon. Protestants can know it the same way those who came before Jesus can know it.
Old Adam,
I think the point people have been making is: on what basis are you able to determine which Books are (a) accurate representations of Christ and His Gospel, and (b) inspired by the Holy Spirit? You seem to suggest that anything in (a) is in (b), but if that’s right, it seems you’d have to say that inspired Scripture is still being written today. And that still doesn’t explain where (a) comes from.
HocCogitat,
(1) The Jews before Christ didn’t have a single canon. The Hellenists used the modern Catholic Old Testament, the Pharisees used the modern Protestant Old Testament, and the Sadducees used only the Torah. So rather than disproving the need for a Magisterium, this example does the opposite. They didn’t have one, and had no agreed-upon canon of Scripture as a result.
(2) The ancient Jews didn’t believe in sola Scriptura. So, for example, the Jewish Virtual Library explains, “The Oral Law is a legal commentary on the Torah, explaining how its commandments are to be carried out. Common sense suggests that some sort of oral tradition was always needed to accompany the Written Law, because the Torah alone, even with its 613 commandments, is an insufficient guide to Jewish life.”
(3) Finally, there was a large degree of centralization within ancient Judaism — one need only read the Bible to see this. Even when the Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed on the canon of Scripture and on doctrines like angels and the Resurrection as a result (Acts 23:8), they still worked together in the Sanhedrin.
So I think actually looking at the beliefs and practices of ancient Judaism will show you how self-defeating that line of reasoning is. One reason Christ needed to establish a Church was to avoid the sort of crippling factions and infighting we see in Acts 23.
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, ‘whatever drives Christ and His gospel’. For us, that is what is to be focused upon. If it does not promote Christ Jesus and His gospel then it is either law (what we should, ought, or must be doing), or just other. We say it is all Word of God and all Holy Scripture, but as Devin Rose accurately pointed out, we have a canon within the canon.
I check back in later (or tomorrow).
Thanks to all, once again, for being so congenial and pleasant in your disagreements and or questioning.
You guys
Old Adam,
I appreciate both the conversation and your tone in it, and I’m sorry if I’m just not “getting it,” but are you saying that Mere Christianity would be canonical Scripture?
I think you misunderstood my point. I am arguing that the line of reasoning that runs: “If there is no infallible teaching authority, then there is no obvious way to determine which books are inspired. Therefore, there is an infallible teaching authority.” is a non-sequitir.
And it is. It relies on a suppressed premise that there is an obvious way to determine the canon. And this cannot be proved. And it can’t just be presumed that God would give us this clarity since he didn’t for thousands of years before Christ. So saying that Protestantism leaves us with no easy way to determine which books are inspired proves nothing.
I think you misunderstood my point. I am arguing that the line of reasoning that runs: “If there is no infallible teaching authority, then there is no obvious way to determine which books are inspired. Therefore, there is an infallible teaching authority.” is a non-sequitir.
And it is. It relies on a suppressed premise that there is an obvious way to determine the canon. And this cannot be proved. And it can’t just be presumed that God would give us this clarity since he didn’t for thousands of years before Christ. So saying that Protestantism leaves us with no easy way to determine which books are inspired proves nothing.
Gents,
Great dialogue. Purgatory was my last hurdle to get over. In the end, I found it one of the most life affirming doctrines of the Church. St. Paul teaches purgatory in 1 Cor 3:10-15 and the author of Jude refers to a salvation “out of the fire” (1:23) which can’t be referring to hell. I also have a couple of quotes from the Church Fathers on purgatory here. It surprised me to learn how clear the teaching of purgatory was in St. Augustine.
HocCogitat:
it can’t just be presumed that God would give us this clarity since he didn’t for thousands of years before Christ
Doesn’t this kind of make our point? Wouldn’t the definitive revelation of God–His Son, Jesus Christ, The Truth–clear things up a bit? Wouldn’t His Church be better off than the Hebrew people? I also think your points fails to appreciate what the Catholic position asserts–that Christ founded a Church and that He leads that Church into all Truth by the Holy Spirit. The circumscription of the canon is one of those acts of that Church. Is it so controversial to claim that there is nothing ostensibly or demonstrably in Scripture that would be the cause for the circumscription of the canon? Calvin taught we would know by a burning in our heart. As Catholics, we say that doesn’t get you much more than Mormonism.
Let me get this straight:
1. God didn’t give us a way for thousands of years to clearly know the canon
2. He sends Christ, but still operates under the vague premise of the OT canon (not sure, maybe, kinda sorta)
3. Protestants aren’t sure about the canon just like Jews weren’t sure about the canon
4. Catholics and Protestants are in the same boat
I’m trying to appreciate Joe’s non sequitur…If you would, would you explain where I have misunderstood your argument?
Very well done Joe! (or should I say your friend?)
Here are some other comments worth sharing regarding the Papacy and Councils:
(1) The 6th Canon of Nicaea proves the Papacy, and this is buttressed by Canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council, contrary to popular Protestant and Eastern Orthodox claims.
(2) The Council of Ephesus said this:
“Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [ie Rome] said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc.”
(Council of Ephesus, Session III)
(3) I haven’t looked into the subject in-depth, but apparently Pope St Agatho (who’s letter refuting Monothelitism, i.e. one will in Christ rather than the orthodox number two) said some things confirming the Papacy at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which was accepted by the East.
(4) The Eighth Ecumenical Council condemned Photius (leader of anti-Papacy sentiment in the East), but the East rejects this Council. Instead, some EO argue that a few years later, in the ‘real’ 8th Council, the Pope’s claims of the prior ‘fake’ 8th council were annulled, thus proving a council can overturn a Pope. But this appears to be desperation and white-washing of the facts, for no such thing happened in that manner.
Regarding the Canon question within Lutheranism, I came across a fascinating ‘fun fact’ which is that Luthernaism has no defined canon – in other words, the canon, for Lutherans, is technically open.
The Book of Concord gives no list of books – which is odd for something so long and extensive – and contrast this to the various Calvinist confessions which list the canon immediately.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, ‘whatever drives Christ and His gospel’. For us, that is what is to be focused upon.
To focus on ‘whatever drives Christ and His gospel’ you need to know how to tell what drives Christ and His Gospel — outside the books, of course, since you will be judging them by it.
So I am well overmatched in this convo in terms of breadth and depth of knowledge on councils, decrees, and even the Bible so feel free to strike this Joe or correct it others if you see an issue but I’d like to try from another perspective:
I would say we have a disagreement on a fundamental issue, what is the Bible. so now what? Certainly neither of us can say, well it’s up to YOU what your Bible is because that quickly can devolve into cultural relativism and we could conceivably find Islam as “right” as Christianity, so with that in mind
1) Where did Luther get his teachings from?
2) Where did the church (RCC) get her teachings from?
3) Why the disagreement?
Secondly,
We have to consider the circumstances in which Paul wrote to the Romans. I COMPLETELY agree with oldadam that Romans is a very good book, perhaps one of the best outside of the Gospel precisely because of what he teaches about works. However, we have to realize that Paul is addressing a grievance in THE CHURCH of Rome in that the Jews and Gentiles disagreed. In response to the Jews he displays that their Law is not necessary or sufficient for their own salvation, that Christ is both of these, but he goes on to say that this does not mean that the law is not in and of itself good for development of faith and following of Christ.
Romans 2:17-24, a stark condemnation of upholding the law for the sake of the law is quickly followed by Romans 2:28-3:2 in which he also praises the advantage that the Jews have in the law but only in following it with their own hearts. I LOVE ROMANS. it shows exactly the truths Luther held while also identifying it for the half-truth that it really is. Keep in mind that Paul goes on to say that those who have the law are helped by it and even more responsible for their actions because of their knowledge of it…. comments welcome
HocCogitat,
As Brent alluded to, the New Covenant surpasses the Old in every way, so arguing that because there was no infallible authority in the Old Covenant, there needs be (or can be) none in the New, does not work.
Calvin argued that the canon is self-authenticating, that the Spirit witnesses to my (or your) spirit and illumines the books of the canon. But he offers no principled reason for believing that God would guide me or you to know the canon instead of guiding the Church to know it.
Devin,
If I could add to that, Calvin’s Pneumatic way of knowing Scripture undermining virtually everything else he taught vis-a-vis the Radical Reformers. It was the Radicals who believed in understanding Scripture Pneumatically, while the Calvinists were strict about using the historical-grammatical method, to make sure believers didn’t arrive at crazy interpretations simply because they thought the Spirit was telling them.
The idea that a believer isn’t qualified to say what the Bible says, unaided by Tradition and the Church, but is qualified to construct a canon without Tradition or the Church strikes me as an unsustainable hypocrisy.
Joe,
Mere Christianity could have been included in the canon. Many gospels were not included. Some books just barely made it (Revelation, for example).
But where it speaks to who Christ is, it is the Word of God.
Just in the same way that when you speak to someone about Jesus and His work for them on the cross, you are doing the Word of God to them.
@HocCogitat
“And it can’t just be presumed that God would give us this clarity since he didn’t for thousands of years before Christ. So saying that Protestantism leaves us with no easy way to determine which books are inspired proves nothing.”
Would you then claim that Jews could not presume that God would send them Christ because he hadn’t for thousands of years or that we can’t presume Christ will come again because he hasn’t for 2000 years?
If you accept the premise, “God hasn’t given it to us before so he won’t give it to us now.” We would be left with nothing other than what was there at Creation.
Restless Pilgrim,
I appreciate your comments on Purgatory.
We believe that all those disagreements regarding theology (or whatever) are a result of our fallen, sinful nature.
When Christ died for us and promised to forgive us (at the cross and in our Baptisms), He makes us New Men/Women. He clothes us in His righteousness (Galatians 4). “We put on Christ”
That is how we can enter into Heaven with a perfect and righteous God.