Not everything in the Bible is true. The O.T states that the earth was the center of the universe. Thats not true. But as a human, we tend to think of Heaven above us and hell below us. So from that point of view, the earth is at the center. Im not trying to say the writers of the O.T didnt know what they were talking about but if a non believer reads the Bible, they will find it and use it to dicredit our beliefs.
I guess ironically they do it out of tradition as well? although stemmed from Martin Luther, not the Church.
Really interesting. But that doesn’t explain WHY you believed all scripture was God breathed, etc…Or is that what you meant by the first comment, that it came from tradition?
I see…thank you very much for the explanation. Does anyone else have another view on this?
That describes the primary quality of sacred scripture, but not of all scripture. Scripture is simply writing. But, where is the definition of sacred scripture? It’s not in the bible. As well, just where did the sacred table of contents come from?
Another thing to consider is that when the letter was written, the writer did not consider it sacred scripture.
Except that the scriptures referred to in that verse could have only included the Old Testament as the NT had not yet been canonized as scritpure. If this is the verse upon which they rely then it follows that NT is not necessary.
Sorry, we posted the same thing at the exact same time.
I know! it doesn’t make sense does it?
I’ve asked several of them that exact question. I received varying answers, but basically they all said the same thing: “I don’t know.”
Are they not aware that the Council of Nicaea was in 325 A.D. ?
Sounds like they need a little history lesson.
We can start with an examination of the New Testament as if it were a purely human work that is, to the best of our knowledge, an accurate biographical account of the life of Christ and his teachings. Even most secular scholars will acknowledge this.
Do you mean the Council of Trent?
am i thinking of the council of Trent? the one that happened right after the reformation…
Welcome! The Church needs you! Indeed, there exists to some an almost Calvinistic view of scripture, placing it in the category of irresistible grace - like the bible simply fell from heaven in both soft and hard cover editions. Then, the mean old Catholics immediately started back-dating OT books and furiously adding them. Recent discoveries of both Hebrew as well as Greek versions of some Deuterocanonical books tend to destroy this argument, but it continues. Truth rarely matters when you are arguing in favor of tribalism.
I really appreciate your response here because it gets to the heart of my question. But, what I can’t understand is the last piece to your analysis. The first two parts make perfect sense, but when we get to the point where the new testament writers (outside of the Gospels) are given infallible protection, there are numerous problems. The most important of which, in my view, is that Jesus never actually promised this to any of the New Testament writers except Peter and the other apostles. In other words, Paul and the other writers were never told by Jesus that they had the protection of the Holy Spirit…And further, even if they did, are you really saying everything they ever said about Jesus for their whole lives were true? Not even the Catholic Church accepts that.
Why would we assume the same promise of guidance by the Spirit did not apply to Paul, especially given his direct appointment as an apostle by the risen Christ, who instructed him? The objective nature of his apostleship is available from his report regarding his visit to Jerusalem prior to his mission to the Gentiles (Gal. 1–2). After examining him, Peter and James did two things. First, they “added nothing to me” (Gal. 2:6). In other words, they recognized that Paul knew everything they knew even though he had not walked with them as one of the original Twelve; Paul had no need for other apostles to “fill in the blanks” in what he knew. Second, “they gave me … the right hand of fellowship” (2:9). They saw nothing in what the risen Jesus had revealed to him that needed correction. Thus, the original apostles confirmed Paul’s true apostleship. Peter also confirms the writings of Paul. As to any other writers, assuming here you mean Luke and Mark…both accounts are based on eyewitness testimony of the apostolic college.T
This is clear in Paul’s case, but who says that those writings were Paul’s? What about James, Jude and the Letter to the Hebrews? All of these had to be tested. Let’s flip the question: What about what is not in the bible? It is apparent that someone with authority had to investigate all available scriptures for authenticity before including them in the canon, right? There are no stone tablets stating the Sacred Table of Contents of the bible. Not a single original document exists anywhere, and if they did, there is no one to attest to that fact. Every available manuscript is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. This includes canonical, apocryphal and pseudographical documents. From the mountain of writings considered in the 4th century, most of them had to be eliminated. Someone with the guidance of the Holy Spirit had to test and eliminate them, otherwise pollution would have crept into the bible. Conversely, inspired documents may have been left out. So, now what?