Hypocritical to accept the Bible but not the Catholic Church?

[bbbbbbb]

But bbbbbb you do admit that there was, whether the Catholic/Orthodox Church at the time, was able to infallibly decide on the inspired books to be compiled in the bible?

Sorry for the delay in response. I have been very busy.

I agree that a Council of the Church was guided by God, the Holy Spirit, to determine the canon of the Bible. I believe that God receives all the glory and honor for His role in that determination.

I do not believe that one human bishop (i.e. the Pope) can claim credit for this act. Nor do I believe that representatives of his diocese (Rome) which were at the Council can be ascribed all credit for this determination. Almost all other churches were represented at the Council, such as they existed at that time.

I also do not believe that any church organization can lay claim to being kept infallible for all time simply because they had a role in this Council. I believe that insofar as any church submits itself to the Word of God as revealed by God, the Holy Spirit, truth will be attained. When the Word of God is subordinated to a church organization then all manner of error springs forth. I do not refer specifically to your church, but to any and all which fall into this error, and there have been a multitude.

 

[ThomasAbel70]

All men are "fallible", but when The Holy Spirit guides someone (whether they be a Universal Christian or a Denominational Christian) and it uses that person to do It's works, the works themselves are infallible.

No man can override The Holy Spirit when it commands him.

 

[Jason Engwer]

bbbbbbb said:

"I agree that a Council of the Church was guided by God, the Holy Spirit, to determine the canon of the Bible. I believe that God receives all the glory and honor for His role in that determination. I do not believe that one human bishop (i.e. the Pope) can claim credit for this act. Nor do I believe that representatives of his diocese (Rome) which were at the Council can be ascribed all credit for this determination. Almost all other churches were represented at the Council, such as they existed at that time."

Are you referring to the Council of Nicaea? That council didn't promulgate any canon of scripture.

 

[Jason Engwer]

To add to my last post and my earlier citation of Joseph Lienhard, let me cite the comments of some other scholars on the subject of councils and the canon:

"in the fifth century a more or less final consensus [on the New Testament canon] was reached and shared by East and West. It is worth noting that no ecumenical council in the ancient church ever ruled for the church as a whole on the question of the contents of the canon." (Harry Gamble, in Lee McDonald and James Sanders, edd., The Canon Debate [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002], p. 291)

"[Athanasius was] a witness to a consensus that had long been emerging in the churches. The councils of the church played little part in the canonization of scripture. When councils did speak on the subject, their voice was a ratification of what had already become the mind of the church. Canon 60 of the Council of Laodicea (c. 363 C.E.) is likely a later insertion into the decrees of the council; it lists a twenty-six book New Testament, lacking Revelation. The first councils certainly to speak on the subject of the canon were in North Africa: Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419). They were under the influence of Augustine, who regarded the canon as closed: 'For the canon of the sacred writings, which is properly closed' (Civ. 22.8)." (Everett Ferguson, in ibid., pp. 319-320)

The Second Council of Nicaea in the eighth century makes reference to some earlier sources that listed a canon of scripture, but those earlier sources held different canons of scripture. Thus, Second Nicaea couldn't have been endorsing all of their canons. Second Nicaea would have agreed with most of the books included in those canons, but nobody can derive the entire canon of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Protestantism from Second Nicaea. Canonical disagreements continued in some circles after that council was held, including some disagreements over the New Testament canon.

Scholars commonly date the general consensus on the New Testament canon to the timeframe of the fourth and fifth centuries. That consensus predates Second Nicaea by hundreds of years, and it predates Trent by an even wider margin. The consensus wasn't produced by any papal decree or council ruling.

 

[Turkleton]

Sorry for the delay in response. I have been very busy.

I agree that a Council of the Church was guided by God, the Holy Spirit, to determine the canon of the Bible. I believe that God receives all the glory and honor for His role in that determination.

I do not believe that one human bishop (i.e. the Pope) can claim credit for this act. Nor do I believe that representatives of his diocese (Rome) which were at the Council can be ascribed all credit for this determination. Almost all other churches were represented at the Council, such as they existed at that time.

I also do not believe that any church organization can lay claim to being kept infallible for all time simply because they had a role in this Council. I believe that insofar as any church submits itself to the Word of God as revealed by God, the Holy Spirit, truth will be attained. When the Word of God is subordinated to a church organization then all manner of error springs forth. I do not refer specifically to your church, but to any and all which fall into this error, and there have been a multitude.

Fair answer. Beyond this point it becomes a discussion of things like the infallible Church, perpetual Church, the pope etc.

Just for clarification as a Catholic when I say that the Catholic Church decided on the canon of the bible it still is acknowledged that the Pope, Rome or any humans should get credit for the act of compilation but only God who only used these people as "pencils" to draw out what he wanted. God receives all glory in anything done.

 

[Rick Otto]

Fair answer. Beyond this point it becomes a discussion of things like the infallible Church, perpetual Church, the pope etc.

Just for clarification as a Catholic when I say that the Catholic Church decided on the canon of the bible it still is acknowledged that the Pope, Rome or any humans should get credit for the act of compilation but only God who only used these people as "pencils" to draw out what he wanted. God receives all glory in anything done.

That sounds nice, but it doesn't justify the RCC deciding that it's decisions are inerrant.

 

[Turkleton]

That sounds nice, but it doesn't justify the RCC deciding that it's decisions are inerrant.

Like I said, from here it get's into an entirely different debate.

 

[Fenstermacher]

Now don't freak out at me. Read my statements carefully and think before posting. Be open to what I state and be charitable when answering. I really want to know where protestants stand on this topic. Correct whatever statements I've made that are incorrect (fact wise). Make sure you are well informed on the history of Christianity when answering here.

Historically, the Catholic Church used her authority to determine which books belonged in the Bible, and to assure us that everything in the Bible is inspired. This is historical fact. Apart from the decision of the Church, we simply have no way of knowing either truth.

Martin Luther himself admits in his Commentary on St. John (ch. 16), "we are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]--that they possess the word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it." Luther is admitting that Christians owe their Bible to the efforts of the Catholic Church.

Luther's statement support the argument that without the decisions of the Catholic Church, we would not know which books of the Bible are inspired. St. Augustione says in "Contra Epistolam Manichaei, "I would put no faith in the Gospels unless the authority of theCatholic Church had directed me to do so." St. Augustine recognized that theonly way to determine which books are inspired is to accept the teaching authority of the Cahtolic Church.

Historically, the Bible is a Catholic Book. The official canon of books of the Bible was authoritatively determined by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. Thus it is from the Catholic Church that protestants have a Bible at all.

And here is my main point I would like to see most of the discussion go towards...

Logically, the Church with the authority to determine the infallible Word of God, must have the infallbible authorty and guidance of the Holy Spirit. As we have seen, apart from the declatartion fo the Catholic Church, we have abosulutely no guarantee that what is in the Bible is the genuine Word of God. To trust the Bible is to trust the authority of the Church which guarantees the Bible. It is contradictory for Protestans to accept the Bible and et to reject the authority of the Catholic Church.

Logically, Protestants should not quote the Bible at all, for they have no way of determining which books are inspired--unless, of course, they accept the teaching of the Catholic Church.

It's a bit of a balance actually.

Where we think the RCC errs is in, effectively, placing itself above and as the arbiter of the Word of God.

We acknowledge that the Bible is "the church's book" and that it has a custodial responsibility with regard to it and that among the kinds of things this custodianship entails would be confirming the list of books that should be in the Bible. But this relationship is more that of a curator and guardian than an authoritative interpreter.

What we see the RCC do, or at least what we see so many Catholics do for example, is (again, effectively) make the Church the determiner of what is and is not in Scripture.

As common as the view may be among Protestants that the Bible "fell from the sky", the view seems to be more common among Catholics that the canon was fixed at a definite point in the distant past by a hierarchical fiat.

Neither case is true.

The bottom line is that inasmuch as the Bible is the Word of God, the church listens to it and serves it by publishing, protecting, maintaining and preaching it, but to say that the church "decided" which books were to go into it is only true if we understand this "decision" to have been an official ratification of what the church at large had, over time, concluded from having been subject to it.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Now don't freak out at me. Read my statements carefully and think before posting. Be open to what I state and be charitable when answering. I really want to know where protestants stand on this topic. Correct whatever statements I've made that are incorrect (fact wise). Make sure you are well informed on the history of Christianity when answering here.

Historically, the Catholic Church used her authority to determine which books belonged in the Bible, and to assure us that everything in the Bible is inspired. This is historical fact. Apart from the decision of the Church, we simply have no way of knowing either truth.

Martin Luther himself admits in his Commentary on St. John (ch. 16), "we are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]--that they possess the word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it." Luther is admitting that Christians owe their Bible to the efforts of the Catholic Church.

Luther's statement support the argument that without the decisions of the Catholic Church, we would not know which books of the Bible are inspired. St. Augustione says in "Contra Epistolam Manichaei, "I would put no faith in the Gospels unless the authority of theCatholic Church had directed me to do so." St. Augustine recognized that theonly way to determine which books are inspired is to accept the teaching authority of the Cahtolic Church.

Historically, the Bible is a Catholic Book. The official canon of books of the Bible was authoritatively determined by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. Thus it is from the Catholic Church that protestants have a Bible at all.

And here is my main point I would like to see most of the discussion go towards...

Logically, the Church with the authority to determine the infallible Word of God, must have the infallbible authorty and guidance of the Holy Spirit. As we have seen, apart from the declatartion fo the Catholic Church, we have abosulutely no guarantee that what is in the Bible is the genuine Word of God. To trust the Bible is to trust the authority of the Church which guarantees the Bible. It is contradictory for Protestans to accept the Bible and et to reject the authority of the Catholic Church.

Logically, Protestants should not quote the Bible at all, for they have no way of determining which books are inspired--unless, of course, they accept the teaching of the Catholic Church.

I could see how it would seem that way from your point of view, but speaking only from my viewpoint, I do not see the Catholic church as either inerrant, nor unchanging.

I do not see the early church as it was, as what the Catholic church currently is.

now, I'm not one of those "oh, the Catholics are evil apostates" people, I just don't agree with them on some things. I do not beleive (as Catholics do) that their teachings are identical now, as those of the first century Christians.

 

[Rick Otto]

now, I'm not one of those "oh, the Catholics are evil apostates" people, I just don't agree with them on some things. I do not beleive (as Catholics do) that their teachings are identical now, as those of the first century Christians.

Then they would conclude you believe the gates of hell have prevailed aginst The Only One True Church because they made one mistake. you might as well be one of "those people".

 

[Uphill Battle]

Then they would conclude you believe the gates of hell have prevailed aginst The Only One True Church because they made one mistake. you might as well be one of "those people".

meh, whatever. I'll have the one side saying I'm one of "those people" and the other peeved at me beause I won't join them in waving the evil stick at the Catholics.

I care not.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Fair answer. Beyond this point it becomes a discussion of things like the infallible Church, perpetual Church, the pope etc.

Just for clarification as a Catholic when I say that the Catholic Church decided on the canon of the bible it still is acknowledged that the Pope, Rome or any humans should get credit for the act of compilation but only God who only used these people as "pencils" to draw out what he wanted. God receives all glory in anything done.

Thanks. I think your OP has been addressed. at least as far as I am concerned. I am glad that we are in agreement that God receives the glory for giving us His word.

I am bowing out of the discussion now. Thanks again.

 

[Rick Otto]

meh, whatever. I'll have the one side saying I'm one of "those people" and the other peeved at me beause I won't join them in waving the evil stick at the Catholics.

I care not.

Meh, whatever then, go to a feel good forum. You'll have less to complain about,... maybe.
I care to contend for truth.
The only thing I wqave at Catholics is Catholicism. Call it an evil stick if you want, meh, whatever.
meh.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I know Otto! Everyone is justified in everything they do.... so long as they are signing their own cheques.

 

[Rick Otto]

other peeved at me beause I won't join them

We aren't "peeved" at you for not joining, we're "peeved" at your distracting moaning over flamatory "style", especialy when you use inflamatory language in characterizing us. Double standard. Psychological projection.

I won't join them in waving the evil stick at the Catholics.

Nor I. I prefer pointing out error, not stick waving, which is exactly what you're doin' at us, calling our contentions for the faith "stick waving".

You're just proud of your complacency and trying to shame us into compliance.
You're more of a nuisance to all of us than a help to any of us.
Joining us is the last thing I'd want a person like you've been behaving, to do.

 

[Uphill Battle]

We aren't "peeved" at you for not joining, we're "peeved" at your distracting moaning over flamatory "style", especialy when you use inflamatory language in characterizing us. Double standard. Psychological projection.

I don't remember characterizing you at all. You're character enough as it is.

Nor I. I prefer pointing out error, not stick waving, which is exactly what you're doin' at us, calling our contentions for the faith "stick waving".

shoe fits...

You're just proud of your complacency and trying to shame us into compliance.

complacency? hardly. If I were complacent, I'd let the hostile few continue what they do unchallenged. I can't think of a reason to put up with diatribes about how horrible I am for "relativism" or "complacency" or "whining" if I were complacent.

Perhaps it's just that I'm not afraid of the Catholic boogeyman anymore. I opened the closet, and found way less monsters than I previously assumed. Maybe you should try it.

You're more of a nuisance to all of us than a help to any of us.
Joining us is the last thing I'd want a person like you've been behaving, to do.

If I'm irritating the irritants, then perhaps you have a small iota of an idea what you do to some of your brothers and sisters around here on a daily basis.

 

[papist1]

I will rise to the occasion here and provide my insights since you have asked for them. I hope you will not be offended. I will be inserting them in green.



Although your logic is clear, your premise is flawed. Many of us Protestants have no difficulty in using the Septuagint used by Greek-speaking Jews prior to Christ and still in use in the EOC to this day. Should it then be said that we, as well as yourself, should submit to their infalliable authority?

UH, ummm, sooooo, according to you, your own leader, the founder of the protestant religion, lied to everyone, and the Catholic Churfch did NOT canonize the scriptures?

okey dokie.

wow, how can a protestant chose who to believe and who not to, without any church authority given by jesus Christ? I guess they can't, it's just all for one and one for all. "Your best guess is as good as mine" type of thinking eh?

wow, what authority.

peace, papist

<protestant says- "i am my own authority"!!!!

 

[bunnydrop]

Well said PAPIST1. like your way of thinking an speaking x

 

[bbbbbbb]

UH, ummm, sooooo, according to you, your own leader, the founder of the protestant religion, lied to everyone, and the Catholic Churfch did NOT canonize the scriptures?

okey dokie.

wow, how can a protestant chose who to believe and who not to, without any church authority given by jesus Christ? I guess they can't, it's just all for one and one for all. "Your best guess is as good as mine" type of thinking eh?

wow, what authority.

peace, papist

<protestant says- "i am my own authority"!!!!

It seems to me that there is a serious misunderstanding as to who "your own leader, the founder of the protestant religion" actually is. I have yet to meet a Protestant who claims any leader other than Jesus Christ, the founder of not only the protestant religion, but of all of Christianity. He is the only leader of whom I am aware. I certainly deny that He "lied to everyone."

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Now don't freak out at me. Read my statements carefully and think before posting. Be open to what I state and be charitable when answering. I really want to know where protestants stand on this topic. Correct whatever statements I've made that are incorrect (fact wise). Make sure you are well informed on the history of Christianity when answering here.

Historically, the Catholic Church used her authority to determine which books belonged in the Bible, and to assure us that everything in the Bible is inspired. This is historical fact. Apart from the decision of the Church, we simply have no way of knowing either truth.

Martin Luther himself admits in his Commentary on St. John (ch. 16), "we are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]--that they possess the word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it." Luther is admitting that Christians owe their Bible to the efforts of the Catholic Church.

Luther's statement support the argument that without the decisions of the Catholic Church, we would not know which books of the Bible are inspired. St. Augustione says in "Contra Epistolam Manichaei, "I would put no faith in the Gospels unless the authority of theCatholic Church had directed me to do so." St. Augustine recognized that theonly way to determine which books are inspired is to accept the teaching authority of the Cahtolic Church.

Historically, the Bible is a Catholic Book. The official canon of books of the Bible was authoritatively determined by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. Thus it is from the Catholic Church that protestants have a Bible at all.

And here is my main point I would like to see most of the discussion go towards...

As we have seen, apart from the declatartion fo the Catholic Church, we have abosulutely no guarantee that what is in the Bible is the genuine Word of God. To trust the Bible is to trust the authority of the Church which guarantees the Bible. It is contradictory for Protestans to accept the Bible and et to reject the authority of the Catholic Church.

Some comments:

1. MUCH of the Scriptures were regarded as such and embraced as the norma normans LONG before even the RCC itself claims to have come into existance, so your claim that IT formed the Scirptures is baseless. Moses came down that Mountain with the first Scriptures long before Simon Peter was born. Jesus referenced the Scriptures BY NAME - as "the Scriptures" over a dozen times - long before even the RCC claims it was founded. Scripture is older than the RCC.


2. The consensus around what is and is not Scripture is a chapter in Jewish/Christian history that is largely unknown. We have the Council of Jamnia in 90 AD for the Jews - but it merely affirmed the process, it was not the whole of it. And yes, the Council of Hippo in the very late 4th century did list the NT canon books, but it was pretty much a settled issue by then - and the Council of Hippo did nothing to resolve the continued questions (which continued, of slight degree, through the middle ages and until Trent in the 16th Century).


3. Nearly all denominations have, in some formal sense at some formal meeting, declared their affirmation of the canon of Scripture. The RCC is in this sense no different than most of the other 34,999 denominations that Catholics insist exist - virtually all of them (RCC included) at some point had a formal embrace of the books. But to affirm and embrace the consensus is not the same as to form it, apples and oranges. I agree with history, St. Augustine and my Catholic teachers that the RCC AFFIRMED the canon - it didn't form it.


4. In a typical RCC style, you seem to assume that "the church" is The Catholic Denomination. No one else does. Scripture certainly doesn't. And your exclusion of Judaism and the Eastern Orthodox Christians is remarkable to me - as if none of them had a THING to do with the Scriptures and should bow in docility before the RCC as The Infallible Voice of God before they read the Scriptures.



This bit of history focuses on only PART of Scriptures - just the NT part - but it shows that even it was collected with ZERO involvement by the RCC (or any other denomination). Add to that the OT, which also did not involve the RCC.


The New Testament Canon


First Century:


1. The "heart of the Canon" is often regarded to be Paul's epistles. By the time 2 Peter was written (perhaps 70 AD), they seem to be regarding as normative and referred to as Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-16). Many theologians - conservative and liberal - give great importance to Paul's works as perhaps the theological framework for that which was later added. So, by 70 AD, we have perhaps half of the NT books in some aspect of a Canon. A bit later, Clement and others also speak of "Paul's letters" in this way, indicating a canonical status.


2. The Synoptic Gospels (written between 45 - 65) also seem to have been quickly and nearly universally seen as canonical. They were "published" together - as a single tome - as early as 115 and were very common. They too are repeatedly spoken of as canonical.

By this point, we have a fairly solid canon of 18 of our 27 NT books. And there's ZERO evidence that ANY denomination (including the RCC) had a THING to do with it.

Second Century:


Many early writers not only reveal a knowledge of NT books, but refer to them specially - as Scripture. Clement points to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians and maybe Titus. The Shepherd of Hermas (140) quotes from Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, Revelation and James. Ignatius (d.117) speaks of "all of Paul's epistles" authoritatively, he frequently uses normative quotes from Matthew, John and Acts as well. Tatian (c 170) writes that all Christians recognize that there are four Gospel books. Irenaeus also mentions that Christians accept only four Gospel books, he too speaks of "all Paul's epistles" and quotes from 1 Peter and 1 John. He speaks of these as a parallel of the Old Testament - having equal authority (ie being normative and canonical). Tertullian (d. 220) quotes authoritatively and normatively from all 4 Gospels, all the Pauline epistles, Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, Jude and Revelation. All these reveal that much of the NT canon was in place by the end of the Second Century.

So now we have a consensus around 20 books. And there's ZERO evidence that ANY denomination (including the RCC) had a THING to do with it.


Third Century:


At the beginning, we seem to have a rather solid Canon of 20 of the 27 books. They are the Pauline letters (13), the 4 Gospels, Acts, 1 Peter and 1 John. The great majority of the Canon is in place. But a few books - including those eventually being dismissed - were still not embraces with a solid consensus.

Cprian of Carthage (d. 258) says that all Christians accept 21 books: Paul's 13 (in all these lists, nearly always mentioned first), the 4 Gospels, Acts, First Peter, First John and revelation. They are referenced as normative and canonical.

Origin (d. 255) also reports on the status of the books as regarded by Christians. He places them into two groups: Homologoumena (all embrace) as 21 books - the same as Cyprian's list. Antilegomena (challenged) as 10 - they are Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude (all which would eventually be accepted) and also Barnabas, Hermas, Didache and the Gospel of the Hebrews (all of which would soon be rejected).

The NT Canon is now solid for 21 of the 27 books. And there's ZERO evidence that ANY denomination (including the RCC) had a THING to do with it.


Fourth Century:


By this time, there is clearly an embrace of 21 books - and has been for a long time. the only "debate" centers around 5- 6 that eventually were embraced, and a handfull soon to be dropped. The core of 21 is now very solid and unquestioned.

Eusebius (d. 340) wrote that Christians all accept 21 books. He lists 4 as ones accepted by most but not by all: James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John (all eventually embraced). And he lists some as "spurious" - Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache. Most historians fully agree on this situation, although one of that solid 21 (Revelation) some historians think was more debated than Eusebius seems to indicate.

Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 350) does the same for us, listing the books that all Christians embrace as Holy Scripture. His list is the final Canon, except that Revelation was left out, giving us 26 (Matthew - Jude)

There now seems to be little debate at all, a consensus seem pretty solid - God's people settling on a pretty solid list. Although some historians believe that Revelation was still more disputed in the East.

Athanasius of Alexandria (d. 373) Once again, we have someone telling us what we want to know: What books were Christians embracing as Holy Scripture - the NT Canon? He lists them: It's our 27. He does mention the Didache and Hermas as "associated with" but clearly as inferior and below the 27.

Christians clearly had a canon of 27. And there's ZERO evidence that ANY denomination (including the RCC) had a THING to do with it.



Early Christian Meetings:


Early meetings were usually not focused on stating a canon (such seems to have already been in place, with no need to state) but more with practical issues of the lectionary - what would be the Sunday readings.


The Council of Laodicea (363) Really just a regional synod and in no sense an ecumenical council, it says that "uncanonical books are not to be read in the churches." While it mentions none by name, clearly all knew what was and was not a "canonical book" since there was no need whatsoever to specify which were so regarded. The canon already existed - clearly - in everyone's mind.

The Council of Hippo (393) Again, just a regional council, this is the first official meeting (rather than individual) specifically listing exactly what that canon is. It's our 27, the 27 that had been clearly embraced as such for several decades (and in most cases, since the First Century).

The Third Council of Carthage (397) This again listed the by now very well established NT Canon, already agreed upon by consensus by Christians. It's the now familiar 27.

Since then, hundreds upon hundreds of gatherings of various types have confirmed this consensus that Christians developed and which later these councils acknowledged.



The wisdom of St. Augustine on this:

Augustine (352-430): Let us treat scripture like scripture, like God speaking. It is not for nothing, you see, that the canon has been established for the Church. This is the function of the Holy Spirit." John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Newly Discovered Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 162C.15 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1997), p. 176.



A note about the DEUTEROcanonical OT books,

"The New Catholic Encyclopedia states, "The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent"




.