- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 15 2009,14:53) Quote (942767 @ Sep. 15 2009,12:08) I wasn't around when those who decided what books were to be included in the Canon and which were not, but I can certainly tell by the principle that I have already stated, that precept must be upon precept and line upon line, whether or not something in the scriptures that we have lines up with God's Word or not, and also, I have the priviledge of going to God in prayer and asking Him if He said something that someone says that He said was said by Him or not. In this way, I can never be deceived by those who claim to be sent by Him.
I guess not. In that case you can only deceive yourself.If you are your own rule for what books belong in Scripture, how can I argue with you or guys like Luther who think that James doesn't belong in the Canon.
How can you know for sure whether you have the right canon of Scripture? Your answer: I pray about it and God tells me.
Lame! (and entirely unreasonable)
Hi CA:Why, Lame, if I wanted to know if God said something or not would I come to you and ask you, or would I go to Him?
Quote Jam 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. Jam 1:6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
Jam 1:7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
Jam 1:8 A double minded man [is] unstable in all his ways
He always hears and answers my prayers.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 15 2009,14:56) Quote (942767 @ Sep. 15 2009,12:08) In this way, I can never be deceived by those who claim to be sent by Him.
“And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things!” – Rom. 10:15You are essentially saying, “but God, I don't WANT you to send me someone (a “man”). Just talk to me personally.”
Hi CA:No, I did not say that He send someone to me personally, but He can do that if it is necessary.
Quote Luk 21:31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Luk 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
Luk 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
Luk 21:34 ¶ And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and [so] that day come upon you unawares.
Luk 21:35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.
Luk 21:36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.
Love in Christ,
MartyHi CA:
Sorry, I just re-read what you said, and I understand you to say that I want God to talk to me personally rather than through some man.
But I did not say that at all. I did say that God will answer my prayers, and sometimes he will do that through a man. He has even used a donkey in the scriptures to talk a stubborn man. So, He can talk to me any way that He wishes to talk to me.
Quote Jhn 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. Jhn 10:5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
Love in Christ,
MartyI welcome you all to watch this:
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 17 2009,14:55) I welcome you all to watch this:
CACute!
So we accept the Catholics determined the NT Cannon is inspired. Therefore like the many 100s of Hebrew and Greek scholars and comentators who were not Catholic, including those who held the 27 books of the NT Cannon long before the councils of the third century we accept the Cannon as being inspired and therefore place the inspired wriiten words of the Apostles above what men may say!
The Church has determined that the Cannon is inspired and we agree!
Now if any man brings in damnable heresies that contradict the inspired writtings in the Cannon, then we as Christians should expose them and preach the truth!
Hence the Protestant movement!
Blessings WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 18 2009,07:29) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 17 2009,14:55) I welcome you all to watch this:
CACute!
So we accept the Catholics determined the NT Cannon is inspired. Therefore like the many 100s of Hebrew and Greek scholars and comentators who were not Catholic, including those who held the 27 books of the NT Cannon long before the councils of the third century we accept the Cannon as being inspired and therefore place the inspired wriiten words of the Apostles above what men may say!
The Church has determined that the Cannon is inspired and we agree!
Now if any man brings in damnable heresies that contradict the inspired writtings in the Cannon, then we as Christians should expose them and preach the truth!
Hence the Protestant movement!
Blessings WJ
Ah, but you neglect to mention that you vehemently disagree with the councils of bishops that met to determine the canon of Scripture.And no, there was not unanimous agreement among all of the churches regarding the canon before they did. There was only unanimous agreement on the doctrines of the church: the eucharist, the sacraments, etc.
Don't you find it interesting that you accept that these men who believed that the eucharist was literally the body and blood of Jesus Christ were used by the Holy Spirit to determine the canon?
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 17 2009,17:09) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 18 2009,07:29) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 17 2009,14:55) I welcome you all to watch this:
CACute!
So we accept the Catholics determined the NT Cannon is inspired. Therefore like the many 100s of Hebrew and Greek scholars and comentators who were not Catholic, including those who held the 27 books of the NT Cannon long before the councils of the third century we accept the Cannon as being inspired and therefore place the inspired wriiten words of the Apostles above what men may say!
The Church has determined that the Cannon is inspired and we agree!
Now if any man brings in damnable heresies that contradict the inspired writtings in the Cannon, then we as Christians should expose them and preach the truth!
Hence the Protestant movement!
Blessings WJ
Ah, but you neglect to mention that you vehemently disagree with the councils of bishops that met to determine the canon of Scripture.And no, there was not unanimous agreement among all of the churches regarding the canon before they did. There was only unanimous agreement on the doctrines of the church: the eucharist, the sacraments, etc.
Don't you find it interesting that you accept that these men who believed that the eucharist was literally the body and blood of Jesus Christ were used by the Holy Spirit to determine the canon?
Hi CAQuote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 17 2009,17:09) Don't you find it interesting that you accept that these men who believed that the eucharist was literally the body and blood of Jesus Christ were used by the Holy Spirit to determine the canon?
No because unlike you I do not believe that a man or a group of men are infallible, but in fact inperfect men can be wrong about a particular doctrine and yet God can use them to put together the Cannon of scritpures that would change the face of the World!There is more to the cannon being put together than just a group of men deciding that those were it.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 18 2009,10:02) No because unlike you I do not believe that a man or a group of men are infallible, but in fact inperfect men can be wrong about a particular doctrine and yet God can use them to put together the Cannon of scritpures that would change the face of the World! There is more to the cannon being put together than just a group of men deciding that those were it.
WJ
WJ,Well, I'd sure like to know then where the folks who agreed with you were for the first thousand years of Church history.
If you are right, Christianity disappeared for more than a millennium.
I don't believe this is possible.
Another link:
According to Scripture
By Tim Staples
“If a teaching isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t accept it as doctrine!” That belief, commonly known as sola scriptura, was a central component of all I believed as a Protestant. This bedrock Protestant teaching claims that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith and morals for Christians. Diving deeper into its meaning to defend my Protestant faith against Catholicism about twenty years ago, I found that there was no uniform understanding of this teaching among Protestant pastors and no book I could read to get a better understanding of it.
What role does tradition play? How explicit does something have to be in Scripture before it can be called doctrine? Does Scripture tell us what is absolutely essential for us to believe as Christians? How can we determine the canon using sola scriptura? All these questions and more pointed to the central question: Where is sola scriptura itself taught in the Bible?
Most Protestants find it in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
The fact is that this passage (or any other) does not even hint at Scripture being the sole rule of faith. It says that Scripture is inspired and necessary—a rule of faith—but in no way does it teach that Scripture alone is all one needs to determine the truth about faith and morals in the Church. My attempt to defend this bedrock teaching of Protestantism led me to conclude that sola scriptura is unreasonable, unbiblical, and unworkable.
Unreasonable
The Protestant appeal to the sole authority of Scripture to defend sola scriptura is a textbook example of circular reasoning, and it betrays an essential problem with the doctrine itself: It is contrary to reason. One cannot prove the inspiration of Scripture, or any text, from the text itself. The Book of Mormon, the Hindu Vedas, the Qur’an, the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, and other books all claim inspiration, but this does not make them inspired.
Closely related to this is the question of the canon. After all, if the Bible is the sole rule of faith, we first have to know which books are included in the Bible. Many books were believed to be inspired and, therefore, canonical in the early Church. How do we separate the wheat from the chaff? The Protestant must use the principle of sola scriptura to answer the question of the canon. It simply cannot be done.
I recall a conversation with a Protestant friend about this. He said, “The Holy Spirit guided the early Christians and helped them gather the canon of Scripture and declare it to be the inspired word of God, as Jesus said in John 16:13.” I thought that that answer was more Catholic than Protestant. John 16:13 does tells us that the Spirit will lead the apostles, and by extension, the Church, into truth. But it has nothing to say about sola scriptura or the nature or number of books in the canon.
The Bible does not and cannot answer questions about its own inspiration or about the canon. Historically, the Church used sacred Tradition outside of Scripture as its criterion for the canon. The early Christians, many of whom disagreed on the issue, needed the Church in council to give an authoritative decree to settle the question. Those are the historical facts.
To put my friend’s argument into perspective, imagine a Catholic making a similar claim to demonstrate that Mary is the Mother of God. “We believe the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth and guided the early Christians to declare this truth.” Would the Protestant respond with a hearty amen? No. He would be more likely to say, “Show me where it says in the Bible that Mary is the Mother of God!” The same question, of course, applies to Protestants concerning the canon: “Show me where the canon of Scripture is in the Bible!”
Will the Circle Be Unbroken?
The issues of the inspiration and canon of Scripture are the Achilles heel of any intellectual defense of sola scriptura. So weak are the biblical attempts at an answer that often the Protestant response just turns the argument against the Catholic. “How do you know Scripture is inspired? Your reasoning is just as circular. You say the Church is infallible because the inspired Scripture says so, then you say that Scripture is inspired and infallible because the Church says so!”
Not only is this not an answer, but it also misrepresents the Catholic position. Catholics do not claim the Church is infallible because Scripture says so. The Church is infallible because Jesus said so. The Church was established and functioning as the infallible spokesperson for the Lord decades before the New Testament was written.
It is true that we know Scripture to be inspired and canonical only because the Church has told us so. That is historical fact. Catholics reason to inspiration of Scripture through demonstrating first its historical reliability and the truth about Christ and the Church. Then we can reasonably rely upon the testimony of the Church to tell us the text is inspired. This is not circular reasoning. The New Testament is the most accurate and verifiable historical document in all of ancient history, but one cannot deduce from this that it is inspired.
The testimony of the New Testament is backed up by hundreds of works by early Christian and non-Christian writers. We have the first-century testimonies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the Church Fathers—some of whom were contemporaries of the apostles—and highly reliable non-Christian writers such as Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, and others, all testifying to the veracity of the Christ-event in various ways. It is on the basis of the historical evidence that we can say it is a historical fact that Jesus lived, died and was reported to be resurrected from the dead by over 500 eyewitnesses (1 Cor. 15:6). Many of these eyewitnesses went to their deaths testifying to the truth of the Resurrection of Christ (Luke 1:1-4; John 21:18-19; 24-25; Acts 1:1-11).
The historical record also tells us that Jesus Christ established a Church—not a book—to be the foundation of the Christian faith (Matt. 16:15-18; 18:15-18; cf. Eph. 2:20; 3:10, 20-21; 4:11-15; 1 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 13:7, 17). Christ said of his Church, “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).
The many books that comprise the Bible never tell us that they are inspired, nor do they answer many other essential questions about their canonicity. Who can or cannot be the human authors of the texts? Who wrote them in the first place? But Scripture does tell us—remarkably clearly—that Jesus established a kingdom on earth, the Church, with a hierarchy and the authority to speak for him (Luke 20:29-32; Matt. 10:40; 28:18-20). If we did not have Scripture, we would still have the Church. But without the Church, there would be no New Testament Scripture. It was members of this kingdom, the Church, who wrote Scripture, preserved its many texts, and eventually canonized it. Scripture alone could not do any of this.
The bottom line is that the truth of the Catholic Church is rooted in history. Jesus Christ is a historical person who gave his authority to his Church to teach, govern, and sanctify in his place. His Church gave us the New Testament with the authority of Christ. Reason rejects sola scriptura as a self-refuting principle.
Unbiblical
There are four problems with the defense of sola scriptura using 2 Timothy 3:16. First, it does not speak of the New Testament at all. The two verses preceding 2 Timothy 3:16 say:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to in
struct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.This passage does not refer to the New Testament. In fact, none of the New Testament books had been written when Timothy was a child. Claiming this verse as authentication for a book that had not been written yet goes far beyond what the text claims.
Second, 2 Timothy 3:16 does not claim Scripture to be the sole rule of faith for Christians. As a Protestant, I was guilty of seeing more than one sola in Scripture that simply did not exist. The Bible teaches justification by faith, and we Catholics believe it, but we do not believe in justification by faith alone, as Protestants do. Among other reasons, the Bible says that we are “justified by works and not by faith alone” (Jas. 2:24). There is no sola in 2 Timothy 3:16 either. The passage never claims Scripture to be the sole rule of faith.
James 1:4 illustrates the problem:
And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
If we apply the same principle of exegesis to this text that the Protestant does to 2 Timothy 3:16, then we would have to say that all we need is patience (steadfastness) to be perfected. We don’t need faith, hope, charity, the Church, baptism, or anything else.
Of course, any Christian knows this would be absurd. But James’s emphasis on the central importance of patience is even stronger than Paul’s emphasis on Scripture. The key is to see that there is not a sola in either text. Sola patientia would be just as wrong as sola scriptura.
Third, the Bible teaches that oral Tradition is equal to Scripture. It is silent when it comes to sola scriptura, but it is remarkably clear in teaching that oral Tradition is just as much the word of God as Scripture is. In what most scholars believe was the first book written in the New Testament, Paul said:
And we also thank God . . . that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God. (1 Thess. 2:13)
According to Paul, the spoken words of the apostles were the word of God. In fact, when Paul wrote his second letter to the Thessalonians, he urged Christians there to receive the oral and written Traditions as equally authoritative. This would be expected because both are the word of God:
So, then, brethren stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess. 2:15)
Finally, 2 Timothy 3:16 is specifically addressed to members of the hierarchy. It is a pastoral epistle, written to a young bishop Paul had ordained. R. J. Foster points out that the phrase “man of God” refers to ministers, not to the average layperson (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1149). This title was used in the Old Testament to describe those consecrated to the service of God (Deut. 33:1; 1 Sam. 2:27; 1 Kgs. 12:22). Not only does the text not say Scripture sola, but Paul’s exhortation for Timothy to study the word of God is in the context of an exhortation to “preach the word” as a minister of Christ. To use this text to claim that sola scriptura is being taught to the average layperson is—to borrow a phrase from Paul—going far “beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).
Unworkable
The silence of Scripture on sola scriptura is deafening. But when it comes to the true authority of Scripture and Tradition and to the teaching and governing authority of the Church, the text is clear:
If your brother sins against you go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. . . . But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you. . . . If he refuses to listen . . . tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matt. 18:15-17)
According to Scripture, the Church is the final court of appeal for the people of God in matters of faith, morals, and discipline. It is telling that since the Reformation of almost 500 years ago—a Reformation claiming sola scriptura as its formal principle—there are now over 33,000 Protestant denominations. In John 10:16, Jesus prophesied there would be “one flock, one shepherd.” Reliance on sola scriptura has not been effective in establishing doctrine or authority.
Hi CA,
The Catholic church is the final arbiter?
You are not led by the Shepherd so cannot be the flock.Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 17 2009,18:21) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 18 2009,10:02) No because unlike you I do not believe that a man or a group of men are infallible, but in fact inperfect men can be wrong about a particular doctrine and yet God can use them to put together the Cannon of scritpures that would change the face of the World! There is more to the cannon being put together than just a group of men deciding that those were it.
WJ
WJ,Well, I'd sure like to know then where the folks who agreed with you were for the first thousand years of Church history.
If you are right, Christianity disappeared for more than a millennium.
I don't believe this is possible.
CAI think you are missing my point, probably because I did not clarify hoping you would get it.
The Protestants also agreed with the Cannon of scriptures for the same reasons that the CC Fathers agreed.
They had the same manuscripts and history to make the determination of what was inspired, and so we have many Hebrew and Greek scholars comparing the scienctific and historical evidence as well as the 1000s of Manuscripts to determine what should be considered inspired and what should not. Many Manuscripts were rejected!
So the Protestant community agreed as well, even though many were rejected for certain reasons as not being Cannanocle!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 22 2009,12:32) WJ, Well, I'd sure like to know then where the folks who agreed with you were for the first thousand years of Church history.
If you are right, Christianity disappeared for more than a millennium.
I don't believe this is possible.[/quote]
CAI think you are missing my point, probably because I did not clarify hoping you would get it.
The Protestants also agreed with the Cannon of scriptures for the same reasons that the CC Fathers agreed.
They had the same manuscripts and history to make the determination of what was inspired, and so we have many Hebrew and Greek scholars comparing the scienctific and historical evidence as well as the 1000s of Manuscripts to determine what should be considered inspired and what should not. Many Manuscripts were rejected!
So the Protestant community agreed as well, even though many were rejected for certain reasons as not being Cannanocle!
WJ
WJ,You are proving that you have not even studied this issue. Determining the canon of Scripture was not a manuscript issue. There were many beautiful orthodox works that were considered Scripture, but were rejected as canonical. One of the primary sources the fathers appealed to to determine the canon was the sacred liturgy. But I don't want to get too deep right now with you. I want to whet your appetite and cause you to want to actually study this issue for yourself.
So the Protestants did NOT use the same litmus test as the fathers to determine the Canon. Go study your history.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 22 2009,12:32) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 21 2009,20:38) WJ, Well, I'd sure like to know then where the folks who agreed with you were for the first thousand years of Church history.
If you are right, Christianity disappeared for more than a millennium.
I don't believe this is possible.
CAI think you are missing my point, probably because I did not clarify hoping you would get it.
The Protestants also agreed with the Cannon of scriptures for the same reasons that the CC Fathers agreed.
They had the same manuscripts and history to make the determination of what was inspired, and so we have many Hebrew and Greek scholars comparing the scienctific and historical evidence as well as the 1000s of Manuscripts to determine what should be considered inspired and what should not. Many Manuscripts were rejected!
So the Protestant community agreed as well, even though many were rejected for certain reasons as not being Cannanocle!
WJ
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 21 2009,20:38) You are proving that you have not even studied this issue.
WJ,You are proving that you have not even studied this issue. Determining the canon of Scripture was not a manuscript issue. There were many beautiful orthodox works that were considered Scripture, but were rejected as canonical. One of the primary sources the fathers appealed to to determine the canon was the sacred liturgy. But I don't want to get too deep right now with you. I want to whet your appetite and cause you to want to actually study this issue for yourself.
So the Protestants did NOT use the same litmus test as the fathers to determine the Canon. Go study your history.
CAFirst of all condescension doesn't work very well with me!
Nothing in my statement is untrue or can be construed as me not studying the issue.
I have a BBS and a M.Div and have done my homework, not to say that I cannot learn for God knows the more I think I know the more I realize I do not.
I disagree with you in that the Protestants didn't use the same Litmus test.
What history should I study, merely the CC in the CC archives?
The 27 books of the NT was already in circulation in the second century before the councils of the CC.
If you want to go there that is fine, it shall be quite a journey!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 22 2009,13:24) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 21 2009,20:38) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 22 2009,12:32) WJ, Well, I'd sure like to know then where the folks who agreed with you were for the first thousand years of Church history.
If you are right, Christianity disappeared for more than a millennium.
I don't believe this is possible.
CAWJ
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 21 2009,20:38) You are proving that you have not even studied this issue.
WJ,You are proving that you have not even studied this issue. Determining the canon of Scripture was not a manuscript issue. There were many beautiful orthodox works that were considered Scripture, but were rejected as canonical. One of the primary sources the fathers appealed to to determine the canon was the sacred liturgy. But I don't want to get too deep right now with you. I want to whet your appetite and cause you to want to actually study this issue for yourself.
So the Protestants did NOT use the same litmus test as the fathers to determine the Canon. Go study your history.
CAFirst of all condescension doesn't work very well with me!
Nothing in my statement is untrue or can be construed as me not studying the issue.
I have a BBS and a M.Div and have done my homework, not to say that I cannot learn for God knows the more I think I know the more I realize I do not.
I disagree with you in that the Protestants didn't use the same Litmus test.
What history should I study, merely the CC in the CC archives?
The 27 books of the NT was already in circulation in the second century before the councils of the CC.
If you want to go there that is fine, it shall be quite a journey!
WJ
WJ,I wasn't trying to be condescending to you. I truly thought you were ignorant of the subject. As for your degrees and scholarship, let me say that from now on I will truly view you in a different light. I hope you will forgive me for being so assuming with you. I'm sorry for grouping you with some here who I genuinely think are gullible. Apparently you are not. So I'm sorry for making things sound that way.
I'm excited that you would want to explore the subject with me. Let me first say that contrary to many historical revisionist views, the Bible was not meant to be a pillar or support of the faith. It was meant to be a compilation of some of the scriptures used for liturgical services.
That was a primary purpose for declaring the Bible canon. Still is today. When we are in the liturgy of the Word and liturgy of the Eucharist, we read from the scriptures.
The Catholic Mass is a beautiful combination of both Oral Tradition and Written Tradition; the Written Tradition that is present in the scriptural readings, and the Oral Tradition present in the homilies, which help us to properly understand the Written Tradition. This was an efficient setup, especially considering that the vast majority of people in the early Church days were illiterate, and considering that the literacy levels did not significantly rise until the advent of the printing press. (1500s) The Bible was meant to be used as an authoritative supplement to the foundation of the Christian worship in the Church – the Mass (or Divine Liturgy for us in the East).
This is why you will see the Church councils defining the canon as something to be “read in church.”
Council of Hippo
“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).
Council of Carthage III
“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon (Chronicles), two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . .” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
I will not deny that apostolic origin was a concern. But it was not strictly an exclusive concern as it concerned the original 12 or Paul or we wouldn't have the gospel of Mark for example.
Anyway. There is much more to say. But I'll give you a chance to respond.
CA
Hi CA,
Remember your motto-not by scripture AT ALL… “sacred tradition rules”
You are divorced from the bridegroomCatholicApologist wrote:
Quote Most here that I have read seem to have one doctrine in common: Sola Scriptura. The idea that the Bible Alone is the only rule for faith and practice. I submit that this is a self-refuting proposition.
Are you stating that Sola Scripture means that you cannot have other authorities governing Christian life and devotion?
If so then you misunderstand what Sola Scripture means to all but a fringe element of Christianity.
Sola Scripture means the bible is infallible authority for the Christian faith and contains all that is necessary for salvation and holiness. If another source disagrees with scripture then that source is flawed.
CatholicApologist wrote:
Quote Why? Because the Scriptures need to be interpreted. And herein lies the problem. Each of us is FALLABLE. And therefore so is our interpretation.
How does that falsify the idea that Scripture is infallible and contains all that is necessary for salvation and holiness? I suppose you are getting confused between the translation/interpretation of scripture and Scripture. Many Christians realize translates and interpretations can be flawed and strive to overcome those flaws in various ways including using Greek and Hebrew Lexicons. They do that in order to find what is true Scripture and what is false. In the end though, it is God who will lead one to the truth if they truly seek him.
Let me state this…that the man who declares that he accepts only the Bible as his authority in religious matters does not really mean it. For he really believes in what he himself thinks any given passage of the Bible to mean, which might not be what the Bible means at all. For such a person, the only ultimate authority in religious matters is not that of the Bible, BUT THAT OF HIS OWN JUDGEMENT CONCERNING IT, and he has no assurance that his own judgment is any more reliable than that of others whose interpretation differs from his and who honestly believe his interpretation to be quite mistaken.
I mention this here merely to bring out the fact that the Catholic position is not affected by such difficulties. For it holds that Christ never intended the Bible alone to be each man's “guide book” to religious truth.
His method was to establish a Church authorized by him to teach mankind in his name. He chose his apostles, trained them, and commissioned them to go and to teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, “teaching them all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20). He did not tell them to write any books. No books of the New Testament were written until years after his death.
But the first Christians were not without guidance. The Acts of the Apostles tells us that they “were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles” (Acts 2:42).
Christ, therefore, meant the official teaching of the apostles and of their successors in the Church to be our guide, not the written Bible which is so liable to misinterpretation by its various individual readers, however sincere they may be.
The Bible, as the very Word of God, is true in itself, but not all the conclusions people choose to draw from it are necessarily right. And this brings us to a further and very vital point of divergence between the position of Protestants generally and that of the Catholic Church.
“Private interpretation”
Apart from the question of the adequacy or inadequacy of the Bible, the problem of its interpretation is one of the first importance. It can have authority for us as the Word of God only provided we rightly grasp exactly what God intended to say. No meanings other than those he intended to be read into the text by men have any divine authority at all.
It has been said that once one admits that the Bible contains the revelation of God himself, then we have to admit that no man can go wrong if he is guided by it. If he were really guided by it, that would of course be true, at least as regards that part of divine revelation which has been recorded in its pages.
But the trouble is that a man can wrongly think he is being guided by the Bible when in reality he is not, owing to his having misunderstood it. And is it not true, passing over for the moment the fact that for over a thousand years before the invention of the printing press it was impossible for each man to have a Bible, that when universal distribution became possible sincere and earnest Bible readers arrived at a multitude of conflicting conclusions?
If private interpretation were God's way, the same Holy Spirit would have led all confiding in his assistance to one and the same truth. (this forum might not even exist?)
Against these considerations, the command of Christ has been urged that we “search the Scriptures” (John 5:39). But the thousands of well-intentioned Protestants who have quoted those words as if indeed they were a command have been led astray by the translation in the Protestant Authorized Version of the Bible, a translation which has been corrected in the Protestant Revised Version to “You search the Scriptures.”
Christ was stating a fact, not giving a command. He was addressing a group of Jews and blaming them for not recognizing him as the fulfillment of all that the Scriptures had predicted about him. The . . . Protestant Revised Standard Version describes him as saying, “You do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe him whom he has sent. You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me.”
As a matter of fact, the whole passage is fatal to the contention that by searching the Scriptures one will necessarily arrive at the truth. The very ones to whom Christ was speaking had searched the Scriptures in the sincere belief that by such means they would learn all that was necessary for eternal life. Christ acknowledged that they really thought in such a way. And yet they had not arrived at the truth!
“Bible its own interpreter”
A way out of these difficulties was thought to be found in the contention that the Bible, as no other book can boast, is its own interpreter. After all, it was urged, since the Bible contains the inspired Word of the infinite God, no interpretation of it by any finite mind could possibly do it justice. We must therefore hold that the Word of God interprets itself to each sincere reader of the Bible.
It is really impossible, though, to maintain such a position. Although sacred Scripture is inspired by the “infinite God,” we cannot escape accepting the interpretation placed upon it by finite minds.
After all, Scripture must mean something. To declare that meaning is to interpret it. And as human beings have only finite minds, they must either rely on meanings derived from it by their finite minds or refuse to attribute any meaning to Scripture at all.
No book, even one inspired by God, can be its own interpreter, and the very suggestion that the Bible is self-interpreting is opposed to its own teaching. For not only does the Bible nowhere claim to be “its own interpreter,” it declares the very opposite. Thus we read in the Acts of the Apostles that, when Philip found the Ethiopian reading the Bible, he said to him, “Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?” The man replied, “And how can I, unless some man show me?” Then Philip, in the name of the Church, interpreted the Scriptures for him (Acts 8:27-39).
Writing to Timothy, St. Paul tells him that it is the Church of the living God which is “the pillar and the ground of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). Again, he tells him, as a bishop of that Church, to “keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost…Preach the word…reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine” (2 Tim. 1:14, 3:2). What does that mean but to interpret Scripture correctly and insist on the acceptance of the true interpretation declared in the name of the Church wherever it is a question of such doctrines as are contained in the Bible?
The choice, then, is between interpretations proposed by unauthorized and fallible human minds and those of an authorized and infallible teacher in this world if such exists. The Bible contains the truth, but not everyone, even with the best of good will, is able to discern the truth it contains.
The Bible needs an authoritative teacher to explain its meaning in innumerable passages if misunder-standings are to be avoided. If a teacher is needed in schools to explain the text-books dealing with the mysteries of nature itself, how much more necessary is a teacher to explain the mysteries of divine revelation contained in Holy Scripture!
The Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church alone, claims to be the divinely-appointed and infallible teacher at hand for this purpose, and hers is the only truly biblical position.
“Holy Spirit speaks”
Lacking faith in the Catholic Church and not finding her claims acceptable, Protestants go on to declare that even if the Bible as a book cannot be its own interpreter, at least the Holy Spirit is infallible, and he can render each reader infallible in his interpretations provided he has faith in Christ and is prepared to rely entirely upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
But if each sincere reader of the Bible is rendered infallible by the Holy Spirit in discerning th
e meaning God intended to reveal, what is this but to claim for each believer an infallibility before which the much more modest claims of Catholics to one infallible pope pale into insignificance!But descending from the ideal plane to that of the real, is it not astonishing that millions of would-be infallible readers of the Bible are not dismayed by the fact that they arrive at a multitude of mutually-exclusive conclusions?
Results in practice make it almost a blasphemy to say that the Holy Spirit has anything to do with such a host of contradictory interpretations!
Just consider the multitude of different Protestant churches which have been established in accordance with the immense variety of opinions arising from the private interpretation of Holy Scripture! Thus we have Lutherans and Calvinists, Anglicans and Baptists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Methodists, and the host of more recent sects, such as the Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Witnesses of Jehovah, and an almost unending list of others, each claiming to be based upon the Bible.
The height of absurdity is reached by such extravagances as those of the Kentucky snake cults whose members believe they can be bitten at will by poisonous reptiles without any ill-effects, thinking their practice to be justified by a passage in St. Mark's Gospel: “They shall take up serpents…and it shall not hurt them” (Mark 16:18).
In reality, they base their practice on their own wrong interpretation of those words. Christ did not say that the miraculous sign he promised would be always operative for everybody. Among the signs shown by his followers sometimes even such things as being unharmed by serpents could be expected. But always it would be a miracle wrought by God when God willed, not a kind of magic within the power of deluded people when they willed.
The Acts of the Apostles tells us that St. Paul was bitten by a viper and that God preserved him from harm (Acts 28:5). But St. Paul was not guilty of presumption, deliberately allowing himself to be bitten and then challenging God to protect him–a form of presumption which our Lord expressly condemned (Luke 4:12).
When the devil told Christ to cast himself down from the pinnacle of the Temple, quoting Scripture to show that no harm would come to him, our Lord replied, “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God” (Matt. 4:7). Men have not the right to dare God to do even what they think, rightly or wrongly, that God has promised to do.
Even in the earliest years of the Protestant Reformation, during the Elizabethan era, Shakespeare made Bassanio say, “In religion, what damned error, but some sober brow will bless it, and approve it with a text” (Merchant of Venice, III:2). But it is doubtful whether Shakespeare himself foresaw such grotesque outbreaks resulting from the so-called principle of private judgment as those of the Kentucky snake cults!
What has to be noticed, however, is that such fantastic cults are the effect of the same principle as that claimed for themselves by the more sedate and respectable Protestant denominations which reject the authority of the Catholic Church and declare that they have the right to be guided by their own individual interpretations of Holy Scripture.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
