Bible being the Sole Authority??

[mackbrislawn]

Who canonized the OT that Jesus spoke of in Luke 24 before the NT was written?

I’ll jump in here with a comment. The OT wasn’t canonized in those days in the sense we think of it today. A core was assumed to be inspired with the edges kind of fuzzy. The Christian church then inherited the Greek version, the Septuagint which became the Church’s scriptures.

 

[srtc10]

Another question I could not answer as a former non-catholic:

Who exercises the authority, given to them by Christ, to propose truths contained within the pages of sacred scripture, within the Protestant sphere?

I would not craft the question in such a manner and I would not use the word “propose” but my answer would be the born again believer.

 

[pablope]

Correct me if I am wrong, but Catholics acknowledge that Scripture is infallible and inerrant. ?

The Scripture is not infallible…infallibility means incapable of committing error…an action word…on a man can be fallible or infallible.

The Bible is in-errant…without error in the truth of God it proclaims.

You stated here that Scripture cannot interpret Scripture. Do you mean by that it is not able to be harmonized with itself?

 

[pablope]

Who canonized the OT that Jesus spoke of in Luke 24 before the NT was written?

I do not know about Luke 24…but that is not my question. My question is…“Originally Posted by pablope
Who canonzied the OT to be part of scripture, of the Bible as you know it today?”

 

[pablope]

I would not craft the question in such a manner and I would not use the word “propose” but my answer would be the born again believer.

So everyone with a Bible can interpret the writings…and decide for himself/herself what it means?

How can you account for the thousands of conflicting interpretation of protestants? And which has resulted in several thousand denominations?

 

[srtc10]

Your question had to do with authority, for you to say that you were not so much concerned about the authority the OT holds is not a truthful statement, go back and read your posts.

I went back and read my posts and maybe you misunderstood what I was saying. I was not concerned about the authority of the OT. I was concerned with the authority that the Magisterium claims which I believe to be false.

People in the Old Testament were not able to discern the Scriptures without the Prophets and the Levite Priests.

This is not true. There are people in the OT who received direct revelation from God. How were the prophets able to discern the Scriptures?

They were the Old Testament version of what the Magisterium is today.

In a sense, I agree with that. Except those prophets were personally called by God and He told them exactly what to say.

If the people of the OT were so incredibly gifted in the OT interpretation how did so many of them missed the references to Jesus and why would Jesus say this:

I never said all the people of the OT were incredibly gifted. If I didn’t make it clear, I was referring to the believers. However, even true believers are not immune from missing the truth when it is right in front of them.

In short, No - you were not going after interpretation - you challenged the authority of the Magisterium given to them by Christ himself. Don’t try to make it something else now.

Yes, you are correct, I was challenging the authority of the Magisterium. I never tried to make it anything else as you suggest.

 

[srtc10]

There were a multitude of Jewish canons, srtc. Without a magisterium to discern which was the correct one, there were differing opinions and no authority to declare the correct one.

Jesus, of course, quoted from the Septuagint, which is the OT canon the Catholic Church uses.

My question was tongue in cheek. When Jesus pointed the two men on the road to Emmaus to the OT, there was no NT and the Catholic Church had not canonized anything. Which Scripture was Jesus referring to?

 

[srtc10]

Since the Bible came from the Catholic Church and Catholic bishops discerned the sacred texts as the inspired word of God, yes, we believe that the Bible is inerrant. It cannot be infallible as infallibility requires human discernment aided by the power of the Holy Spirit.

So you are suggesting that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit and yet are not inherently infallible?

He probably means that Scripture cannot interpret Scripture. Just as in the case of calling the Bible “infallible”, this is a great example of people anthropomorphizing the written word. The written word cannot think. It cannot reason. It cannot interpret, rather it must be interpreted. It is, however, inerrant when taught in the light of Sacred Tradition and the magisterium of the Church. The Bible is inerrant. The Church is infallible. Both must be true if we are to be certain of the truth. It does one no good to have an inerrant text of which he has little or no understanding, or worse, an erroneous understanding. The inspired nature of the Bible requires as its compliment an infallible interpreter. I think John Henry Newman said that.

So who were the infallible interpreters of the OT?

 

[mackbrislawn]

srtc10;10413625 Correct me if I am wrong, but Catholics acknowledge that Scripture is infallible and inerrant. You stated here that Scripture cannot interpret Scripture. Do you mean by that it is not able to be harmonized with itself?

Again, jumping in, to me the saying that ‘scripture interprets scripture’ means that if there is a biblical passage that seems obscure or ambiguous, maybe there is another passage in the bible that deals with the same topic that is more clear, and then by combining the two we come to a more complete understanding. That is, look at all of scripture, and not seize upon an isolated verse.

As far as Catholics acknowledging that Scripture is inerrant–it is Catholics who came up with the idea in the first place. Protestants simply borrowed that notion.

 

[Mike_SoCal]

We could argue over scripture being the “Sole” authority but I’d rather point out scriptures importance over any other authorities.

I looked up the phrase “It is written” in the Catholic Bible and it appeared 76 times.

Most notably when Jesus is tempted by Satan. Jesus argues with scripture.
He argued with the Pharisees using scripture.

If your ministry is the Great Commission or spreading The Salvation Message, the best two books to teach are Romans and John’s Gospel.

People will always argue over church tradition but Christian theology is based on scripture.

Jesus wasn’t too tolerant of tradition over God’s word.

Mark 7:9
Then he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition!

Theologians wrote their opinions and interpretations over the ages but God’s word is preserved and speaks to us today.

 

[srtc10]

The Scripture is not infallible…infallibility means incapable of committing error…an action word…on a man can be fallible or infallible.

Do you think Catholic are not Christians?

If someone believes in the gospel that Rome teaches, then no, I don’t believe they are a Christian.

I am puzzled…should not there be only one definition?

There should be but there isn’t. Everyone in America seems to think they are Christians. Just look at any Gallop or Barna poll. Anywhere from 70% to 80% of the people polled think they are Christians. In Matt 7, there are many who say to God on judgment day that they knew Him. He tells those many to “Depart from Me, I never knew you.” Jesus said there are many on the wide road on their way to hell. He said there are few on the narrow road which leads to heaven. Last time I checked, many is more than few. A simple math calculation tells you that at the bare minimum, 51% are on their way to hell. At the bare minimum, 20% to 30% are deceived based on the polls.

Calling yourself a Christian is no more valuable than calling yourself a car just because you are standing in a garage.

And who do you think were the first Christians?

The word “Christian” came from some believers in Antioch. It simply came to recognize those who were true followers of Christ in the NT. True believers in the OT were no less born again, they just weren’t “called” Christians. The bottom line is; you are either a true believer, or you aren’t.

 

[srtc10]

I do not know about Luke 24…but that is not my question. My question is…“Originally Posted by pablope
Who canonzied the OT to be part of scripture, of the Bible as you know it today?”

That’s an easy question. The Holy Spirit.

 

[mackbrislawn]

So you are suggesting that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit and yet are not inherently infallible?

So who were the infallible interpreters of the OT?

Of course if the scriptures are inspired that means they are inerrant since the Holy Spirit is inerrant. Your question is a little odd because it has already been explained that ‘inerrant’ and ‘infallible’ have two distinct meanings. Sure, in a loose sense something that is inerrant is also infallible, but ‘infallible’ primarily applies to interpreters. Their interpretations are infallible, that is, the Holy Spirit prevents them from making an incorrect interpretation The idea is that the only really authorized interpreter of scripture is the Church itself, since it was founded by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit. Nothing else is infallible.

The only infallibe interpreter of the OT was Jesus. The apostles also under inspiration when they interpreted the OT.

However, Jesus did give the command to do what the Pharisees said. Whether it should be said the Pharisees were infallible or not, I don’t know, but at any rate they were apparently to be obeyed in their teachings, if not emulated in their actions.

 

[joe370]

I would not craft the question in such a manner and I would not use the word “propose” but my answer would be the born again believer.

Just a little clarification:

All born-again believers in the Protestant sphere, exercise the authority, given to them by Christ, to propose and define truths contained within the pages of sacred scripture?

 

[pablope]

We could argue over scripture being the “Sole” authority but I’d rather point out scriptures importance over any other authorities.

Hmm…I have looked in the Bible…and no where does it say it is the final authority. With what you are saying…you are making a declaration that Scripture is important over any authority…you are making a dogmatic declaration…so what is your authority to make such a declaration? Did the Scripture give you this authority?

I looked up the phrase “It is written” in the Catholic Bible and it appeared 76 times.

 

[srtc10]

I’ll jump in here with a comment. The OT wasn’t canonized in those days in the sense we think of it today. A core was assumed to be inspired with the edges kind of fuzzy. The Christian church then inherited the Greek version, the Septuagint which became the Church’s scriptures.

If the edges were kind of fuzzy, then why did Jesus call the two men in Luke 24 “fools” for not knowing what the OT said regarding His resurrection?

 

[pablope]

If the edges were kind of fuzzy, then why did Jesus call the two men in Luke 24 “fools” for not knowing what the OT said regarding His resurrection?

25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

He did not call them fools…they were referred to as being foolish…for being slow to believe the prophesies…that needed explanation. I think the OT only prophesied Jesus and His coming as the Messiah, but not the resurrection.

Same as today…how is one to fully understand Scripture? By oneself without any guidance?

 

[srtc10]

Just a little clarification:

All born-again believers in the Protestant sphere, exercise the authority, given to them by Christ, to propose and define truths contained within the pages of sacred scripture?

Let’s try this:
All born again believers have the indwelling Holy Spirit. Based on that indwelling Holy Spirit’s leading and guiding, they are able to discover the truths contained within the pages of sacred Scripture. Believers do not define truth. The Holy Spirit alone does the defining.

 

[joe370]

Hey srtc. Your response to the following question (Who canonzied the OT to be part of scripture, of the Bible as you know it today?) is:

That’s an easy question. The Holy Spirit.

I know that God inspired mere fallible men to write and canonize the OT books and the whole Bible for that matter. The question however, has not been answered:

Who, in human form, canonized the OT to be part of scripture…of the Bible, as you know it today?

 

[pablope]

Let’s try this:
All born again believers have the indwelling Holy Spirit. Based on that indwelling Holy Spirit’s leading and guiding, they are able to discover the truths contained within the pages of sacred Scripture. Believers do not define truth. The Holy Spirit alone does the defining.

How does the HS accomplish the defining? And how come, or can you explain, the different understandings and interpretations in Protestantism?

So the HS defines it differently for each individual believer? And how does one know it is indeed the HS? For does the Bible warn us that Satan can masquerade as an angel of light?

How does one tell which one is from the Spirit of God and which is not? For the Bible also tessl us to test the spirit, does it not?