Bible being the Sole Authority??

[jrtrent]

Here are some examples of how the dueterocanonical text play a part in Sacred Scripture. . . Should I post more?

I you like. Better yet would be a reference to a link or website I could explore. I happen to enjoy the Apocryphal books and attend a church where they are included in our daily lectionary. However, they are not considered canonical:

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine (from the 39 Articles)

I think Don Clossen of Probe Ministries has a sound outlook on the Apocrypha. Below are a few excerpts:

Protestants have acted as if these books never existed or played any role whatsoever in the early church. This too is an extreme position. Although many of the early church fathers recognized a distinction between the Apocryphal books and inspired Scripture, they universally held them in high regard. Protestants who are serious students of their faith cannot ignore this material if they hope to understand the early church or the thinking of its earliest theologians. . .

None of the books claim to be written by a prophet and Maccabees specifically denies being prophetic. Others contain extensive factual errors. Most importantly, many in the early church including Melito of Sardis, Origen, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Jerome rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha, although retaining high regards for its devotional and inspirational value.

A final irony in this matter is the fact that even Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Luther at Augsburg in 1518, published a Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (1532) in which he did not include the Apocrypha. probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4225141/k.1102/The_Old_Testament_Apocrypha_Controversy.htm

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks for the definition, but I’m having a hard time understanding it. Is there a list of what the living Tradition teaches that is not in the written Scriptures? And is there a comparison available to help us understand the overlap and difference between the traditions of local churches and the apostolic Tradition?

This is the wrong question to ask.

It’s like saying, “Is there a list of everything your grandparents told you about how to live your life?” We know what our grandparents believed and taught not only by what they wrote, by how they lived, and how they interacted with the family.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I you like. Better yet would be a reference to a link or website I could explore. I happen to enjoy the Apocryphal books and attend a church where they are included in our daily lectionary. However, they are not considered canonical:

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine (from the 39 Articles)

I think Don Clossen of Probe Ministries has a sound outlook on the Apocrypha. Below are a few excerpts:

Protestants have acted as if these books never existed or played any role whatsoever in the early church. This too is an extreme position. Although many of the early church fathers recognized a distinction between the Apocryphal books and inspired Scripture, they universally held them in high regard. Protestants who are serious students of their faith cannot ignore this material if they hope to understand the early church or the thinking of its earliest theologians. . .

None of the books claim to be written by a prophet and Maccabees specifically denies being prophetic. Others contain extensive factual errors. Most importantly, many in the early church including Melito of Sardis, Origen, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Jerome rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha, although retaining high regards for its devotional and inspirational value.

A final irony in this matter is the fact that even Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Luther at Augsburg in 1518, published a Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (1532) in which he did not include the Apocrypha. probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4225141/k.1102/The_Old_Testament_Apocrypha_Controversy.htm

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

 

[pablope]

I you like. Better yet would be a reference to a link or website I could explore. I happen to enjoy the Apocryphal books and attend a church where they are included in our daily lectionary. However, they are not considered canonical:

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine (from the 39 Articles)

 

[jrtrent]

He deferred his opinion on the matter to those in authority over him.

Anyway, why do you give more value to Jerome’s opinion here than in his saying…he is following the judgement of the churches? If the church determined they are canonical…what is you authority to deny they are canonical?

And I am likewise deferring my opinion on the matter to those in authority over me; that is, my church determined they are not canonical, so I have no authority to say that they are. I included a quote from the 39 Articles because that document is one of the doctrinal formularies for my church.

The chart at the Wikipedia article (link below) shows a variety of different canons for various churches, including Protestant, Roman Catholic, and a variety of Orthodox bodies, so it’s not like there was ever a uniform concensus on the matter.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

The make-up of the canon of scripture is not something I find terribly important. That is to say, if my church had decided that all the books in the Septuagint were canonical, that would be fine with me. Similarly, when I was a Lutheran, if the Lutheran church had decided that the antilegomena were not canonical, that also would have been fine by me (seven NT writings about which the witness of the early church is not unanimous as to their authenticity. The Lutherans have “left it to the individual to form his own views regarding any of the antilegomena,” according to Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics). Let each person be happy with their own church’s pronouncements as to the canon of scripture.

 

[adf417]

The make-up of the canon of scripture is not something I find terribly important. That is to say, if my church had decided that all the books in the Septuagint were canonical, that would be fine with me. Similarly, when I was a Lutheran, if the Lutheran church had decided that the antilegomena were not canonical, that also would have been fine by me (seven NT writings about which the witness of the early church is not unanimous as to their authenticity. The Lutherans have “left it to the individual to form his own views regarding any of the antilegomena,” according to Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics). Let each person be happy with their own church’s pronouncements as to the canon of scripture.

JR where, in your opinion, does this philosophy end and the Jehovah’s Witness philosophy diverts?

Peace to you brother!!!

 

[SteveVH]

And I am likewise deferring my opinion on the matter to those in authority over me; that is, my church determined they are not canonical, so I have no authority to say that they are.

From where did your ecclesial community receive authority to determine anything about canonicity?

The make-up of the canon of scripture is not something I find terribly important. That is to say, if my church had decided that all the books in the Septuagint were canonical, that would be fine with me. Similarly, when I was a Lutheran, if the Lutheran church had decided that the antilegomena were not canonical, that also would have been fine by me (seven NT writings about which the witness of the early church is not unanimous as to their authenticity. The Lutherans have “left it to the individual to form his own views regarding any of the antilegomena,” according to Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics). Let each person be happy with their own church’s pronouncements as to the canon of scripture.

How can one possibly know what is inspired and what is not if each person should be happy with whatever their respective leaders decide? One decides this and one decides that. That sounds like absolute chaos to me and is the reason that Christ started a Church to being with and promised to remain with it and send the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth. If the canon of Scripture is not important to you then what is? As a Catholic I can rely on Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, but on what can you rely other than Scripture?

 

[jrtrent]

JR where, in your opinion, does this philosophy end and the Jehovah’s Witness philosophy diverts?

I’m not sure I understand your question. Jehovah’s Witnesses accept the same canon of scripture that most Protestants do. Since the 1960’s they’ve had their own translation that some non-JW’s find questionable in places. Is that what you’re getting at?

 

[jrtrent]

How can one possibly know what is inspired and what is not if each person should be happy with whatever their respective leaders decide?

Well, you seem happy with what your leaders decided, and I’ve read nothing to indicate that the Orthodox Christians are unhappy with what their leaders decided. I’m also happy with what my leaders have decided.

If the canon of Scripture is not important to you then what is? As a Catholic I can rely on Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, but on what can you rely other than Scripture?

My church did rely, at least in part (and maybe other things, too; it’s not something that’s bothered me enough to inquire deeply into), on the teachings and practices of the early churches and their leaders, that is, tradition, in determining what books it would accept as canonical. I’m happy for you that you find Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium to be reliable and trustworthy, but I’m also happy with the decisions of my church, as I’m sure other non-Catholics are with theirs. If it took Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium to give me confidence in the scriptures, perhaps I wouldn’t be non-Catholic.

 

[aidanbradypop]

My church did rely, at least in part (and maybe other things, too; it’s not something that’s bothered me enough to inquire deeply into), on the teachings and practices of the early churches and their leaders, that is, tradition, in determining what books it would accept as canonical. I’m happy for you that you find Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium to be reliable and trustworthy, but I’m also happy with the decisions of my church, as I’m sure other non-Catholics are with theirs. If it took Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium to give me confidence in the scriptures, perhaps I wouldn’t be non-Catholic.

Jr…Do you believe Christ established His Church on earth and that Church is the Roman Catholic Church? If you don’t then disregard this next question lol.

If you believe Christ established His Church and that Church is the Catholic Church, and He gave the Church the authority to compose the Holy Bible while being inspired by the Holy Spirit, then how can you explain a denomination that split from the true Church to then decided what they deem to be Sacred Scripture. Does the Anglican Communion have authority from God to do so?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m happy for you that you find Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium to be reliable and trustworthy, but I’m also happy with the decisions of my church, as I’m sure other non-Catholics are with theirs. If it took Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium to give me confidence in the scriptures, perhaps I wouldn’t be non-Catholic.

Well, jr, the intellectually honest thing for you to do now is acknowledge:

-you believe in the charism of infallibility.
(Unless you want to claim that the Church made an error in discerning the canon)

-you defer to the authority of this church each and every time you quote from the NT.

That’s the honest thing to do.

 

[jrtrent]

Well, jr, the intellectually honest thing for you to do now is acknowledge:

-you believe in the charism of infallibility.
(Unless you want to claim that the Church made an error in discerning the canon)

-you defer to the authority of this church each and every time you quote from the NT.

That’s the honest thing to do.

I have no idea what “charism of infallibility” is, and no desire to look it up. We’ve had enough exchanges in the past for me to know that by “authority of this church” you mean the Roman Catholic Church, which I don’t believe was even in existence til the 5th century at the earliest. The fact that Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox churches accept slightly different sets of books as the canon of scripture leads me to believe that these slight differences are unimportant, because all of these groups are Christian. The intellectually honest thing for you to do, and what would be reflective of simple common courtesy, is to acknowledge that not everyone believes as you do and to stop attributing to others beliefs that you know they don’t hold.

 

[PRmerger]

I have no idea what “charism of infallibility” is, and no desire to look it up. We’ve had enough exchanges in the past for me to know that by “authority of this church” you mean the Roman Catholic Church, which I don’t believe was even in existence til the 5th century at the earliest. The fact that Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox churches accept slightly different sets of books as the canon of scripture leads me to believe that these slight differences are unimportant, because all of these groups are Christian. The intellectually honest thing for you to do, and what would be reflective of simple common courtesy, is to acknowledge that not everyone believes as you do and to stop attributing to others beliefs that you know they don’t hold.

Just ignore the “charism” part and we can agree that you believe that the gift of infallibility has been given, on multiple occasions, to a church. At least as it applies to the canon of Scripture. Yes?

 

[jrtrent]

Just ignore the “charism” part and we can agree that you believe that the gift of infallibility has been given, on multiple occasions, to a church. At least as it applies to the canon of Scripture. Yes?

No. I don’t think any church has or has had the gift of infallibility. The only thing we have that is infallible is the Bible, and that is infallible because its writers were guided by God in such a way as to produce infallible writings. And God providentially preserves His Word in those writings over time.

The canon of scripture is different in different churches, some having 66 books, some 73, and others, I believe, have more than that. Churches in different places not only have a different canon, but also different translations, and translations that come from differing manuscripts. These variations may point to a lack of infallibility on the part of churches in determining their canons, but these slight variations don’t mean that the various Christian churches don’t have the Word of God to guide them. Even in New Testament times, there were both Hebrew texts and Greek translations of the scriptures, possibly with different sets of books, and both were quoted by NT writers as scripture. As one article on Bible preservation notes:

The above shows clearly that the word “Scripture” refers to what the people had access to, what was at hand, what was current, what they could then actually read and hear. Therefore, the biblical usage of the word refers primarily to copies rather than the original autographs.

The fact that these copies and possibly even translations are called “Scripture” strongly implies their preservation, and that the very qualities of the inspired original have been brought over unto them.
av1611.com/kjbp/articles/moorman-preservation.html

It does not take an infallible church for God to preserve the scriptures for us.

 

[adf417]

I’m not sure I understand your question. Jehovah’s Witnesses accept the same canon of scripture that most Protestants do. Since the 1960’s they’ve had their own translation that some non-JW’s find questionable in places. Is that what you’re getting at?

Well you said…

The make-up of the canon of scripture is not something I find terribly important. That is to say, if my church had decided that all the books in the Septuagint were canonical, that would be fine with me. Similarly, when I was a Lutheran, if the Lutheran church had decided that the antilegomena were not canonical, that also would have been fine by me (seven NT writings about which the witness of the early church is not unanimous as to their authenticity. The Lutherans have “left it to the individual to form his own views regarding any of the antilegomena,” according to Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics). Let each person be happy with their own church’s pronouncements as to the canon of scripture.

If the make-up of the cannon is not important based on each church’s decision, where does this philosophy end? It seems that if this philosophy is adequate, there should be no problem with the JW’s changing scripture to fit their beliefs right?

Peace!!!

 

[PRmerger]

No. I don’t think any church has or has had the gift of infallibility. The only thing we have that is infallible is the Bible, and that is infallible because its writers were guided by God in such a way as to produce infallible writings.

Ah, yes. That leads to a different argument I was going to make later. But I can bring it up now.

What you are stating above is no more and no less than the Catholic teaching regarding infallibility. You believe men can be guided by God is such a way as to produce infallible writings.

That’s what the Catholic Church believes about its Magisterium.

So we are both of the position that God can use fallible men to teach infallibly.

 

[SteveVH]

Well, you seem happy with what your leaders decided, and I’ve read nothing to indicate that the Orthodox Christians are unhappy with what their leaders decided. I’m also happy with what my leaders have decided.

This isn’t about whether or not our leaders are making us happy. What is important is whether or not they are giving us the truth. What if someone decides they would like to toss the Gospel of John. Is that just fine?

My church did rely, at least in part (and maybe other things, too; it’s not something that’s bothered me enough to inquire deeply into), on the teachings and practices of the early churches and their leaders, that is, tradition, in determining what books it would accept as canonical.

What early “churches”? What are their names? And from whom did your faith community receive authority to determine what is and what is not canonical?

I’m happy for you that you find Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium to be reliable and trustworthy, but I’m also happy with the decisions of my church, as I’m sure other non-Catholics are with theirs. If it took Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium to give me confidence in the scriptures, perhaps I wouldn’t be non-Catholic.

Why do you have confidence that the texts that make up your Bible are actually the word of God?

 

[joe370]

jrtrent;10346808]No. I don’t think any church has or has had the gift of infallibility.

We both believe that the apostles belonged to Jesus’ church - correct? Surely you believe that Jesus’ church, to which the apostles belonged, possessed the gift of infallibility due to the fact that the apostles, belonging to Jesus’ church, “were guided by God in such a way as to produce infallible writings”?

 

[joe370]

My church did rely, at least in part (and maybe other things, too; it’s not something that’s bothered me enough to inquire deeply into), on the teachings and practices of the early churches and their leaders, that is, tradition, in determining what books it would accept as canonical. I’m happy for you that you find Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium to be reliable and trustworthy, but I’m also happy with the decisions of my church, as I’m sure other non-Catholics are with theirs. If it took Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium to give me confidence in the scriptures, perhaps I wouldn’t be non-Catholic.

If all of the early churches were catholic churches, united as the one catholic church, then the church to which you belong, relies on the teachings and practices of the early catholic church and their leaders i.e. the Magisterium.

 

[PRmerger]

The canon of scripture is different in different churches, some having 66 books, some 73, and others, I believe, have more than that.

Well, the NT canon is pretty much agreed upon, yes?

That’s why I offered the example of the NT, and specifically left out the question of the OT canon.

It does not take an infallible church for God to preserve the scriptures for us.

Then you ought to be fearful, jr, that when you quote from Hebrews, Revelation, Titus, 3 John (which, BTW, never once mentions Jesus!) that a fallible church may have erred in declaring those books to be theopneustos. You know that a fallible church is going to be wrong. That’s what fallible means.

And that means you cannot know that Hebrews is inspired. The fallible church may have erred in its discernment.

Is this really the position you want to take when in dialogue here on the CAFs? What that means is each time you quote from the NT to us, we may be able to tell you, “Except that you’re not really certain that this is the inspired word of God, right, jr? Because you believe a fallible church, which is capable of erring, declared that text to be inspired.”