Dialogue Thread: Is the Bible our only Infallible Authority?

[Philthy]

sk32900:

As I stated earlier, the councils confirmed what was already evident in the churches, with their acceptance of genuine God-breathed NT scripture.

To put it mildly, this is impossibly vague and completely unverifiable. What do you mean by “evident”? What, exactly, was their canon? How do you know who did and did not accept it?

sk32900:

Surely you do not believe the Holy Spirit worked ONLY through those councils.!

The determination was done through the councils of the Church. How else do you propose it was done? What is your proof?

“Check your history again—there was only ONE, the Jewish canon that was settled long before the Council of Jamnia

The question is whether the deuterocanonicals were to be included in the canon. A council that met prior to these writings obviously wouldn’t be relevent, if that is what you are getting at. An Alexandrian and Palestinian canon existed and they didn’t pop up out of thin air.

sk32900:
The apocryphal books were attached to the Septuagint translation of the OT, but were NEVER accepted as inspired by the Jews.
I believe you are mistaken - despite your confidence.

sk32900:

Interestingly, while Jesus and the NT writers use many quotes from the Septuagint, they DO NOT QUOTE EVEN ONCE from any of the apocryphal writings contained in the Catholic Bible. !

Interesting, perhaps, if you were desperate to prove a point you could not otherwise prove. There are, as you know, other books which you accept as inspired, which Jesus and the NT writers DO NOT EVEN ONCE quote from.

sk32900:
One more point: the apocryphal books were NOT declared scripture by the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent in 1546.!
Your ignorance of the facts is becoming glaring. Please tell me you are aware of the councils of Rome,Carthage, Hippo and Florence.

“The Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent” of 1565 states that Catholics “shall never accept or interpret them (scriptures) except according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” So if the church fathers unanimously agree to a doctrine, then it is true Christian teaching—this would include the addition of the apocrypha to the Bible. And yet Jerome—the translator of the Latin Vulgate—OPPOSED including the apocrypha, as did Origen, Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem.!

When you say he “opposed” the inclusion of the deutercanonicals, what do you mean exactly - and what is your point? Do you consider him infallible? Did he leave the Church over his opinion, or accept the authority of the Church as ultimately more valid than his own opinion? He did ACCEPT the canon of the Church on the basis of the authority of the Church, and that is more important than the fact that he had personal reservations. Too bad Luther never learned this lesson.

sk32900:

It’s true that Augustine supported their inclusion into the canon—but the “unanimous consent of the fathers” demanded by Trent is out the window on this point. !

Hardly.

sk32900:
And yet, I’m expected to accept the Catholic Church’s pronouncements as “infallible” and equal to the Bible, when it can’t even stick to its own arbitrary rules! !
What’s your plan B? Who made the infallible declaration of your canon? Luther - 1500 years after the fact and wrong on much of the NT? Your pastor? A historian? You? Its easy to criticize the Catholic Church’s authority - until you need to come up with just ONE good alternative. Lets hear it.

sk32900:

Your statement that there were 2 Jewish canons is on pretty shaky ground—Jesus Himself only referred to ONE—those books contained in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms or Writings (see Luke 24:44).!

If we have no canon of Scripture, you cannot refer to “Jesus” or “Luke” in defence of your proposed canon - you will have to do better.

sk32900:
On John 20:31: My point in quoting this was the NT’s emphasis on the WRITTEN word as opposed to any oral tradition allegedly “passed down” alongside it. See my statement on John 21:20-24 on another post on this thread. The phrase “it is written” is used by Jesus and the apostles around 90 times in the NT. To borrow the words of another writer, the Holy Spirit didn’t take thousands of years to produce the written scriptures, only to bypass them!
Who’s bypassing Scripture? Your comment makes no sense.
You should check out this thread on the canon as well:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=95621

 

[sk32900]

DNS:

Hello again sk32900! I am going to break up my response into two posts in order to correspond to your two most recent posts addressed to me. Before I begin I just wanted to thank you again for engaging in this dialogue. I’m sure it is hard to be the only one of your faith on a thread defending Sola Scriptura against a group of Catholics!

Hi DNS,

Well, it sure keeps me busy, that’s for sure! Thanks for your for patience! I will be addressing your posts and the others ASAP, as my schedule allows. I also want to express my appreciation for your discussing this issue with me! You, b_justb and Pedro have given me much food for thought, both in stating your positions on this matter and sharing what you view as shortcomings in my position—and further, you all have done this with a good spirit. I’ll be awaiting your second post (which will no doubt come while I’m STILL answering all the other ones!). Thanks again for your patience, and God bless!

 

[bekalc]

Catholics don’t believe that there Tradition contradicts Scripture, they cannot contradict each other. Although we can interpert each one incorrectly. They cannot contradict because they flow from the same source Apostolic teaching (and Christ’s teaching.)

The thing for me is this. The whole point is that Christian’s don’t agree on what the Bible means. I can sit there and I can get into an argument with a hardcore Calvinist. We can sit around and trade Scripture round and round till our heads get lose… Okay. Does it become how many Scriptures? each side has?
The Bible wants us to be in agreement, that’s Scriptural. But well the whole point is that Christians don’t agree, and that has led to what you can call hundreds of denominations each defining Scripture differently.

In the end Scripture cannot tell me if I’m interperting it correctly or not. It’s not able to do that. It’s kind of like the Constitution. Which is the law of the United States. Our government derives its authority from the consititution. We get certain rights (explicit) others implied by the Consitution.

But can you imagine what would happen if a group of people came out and said. Well you know what. We don’t want judges. We don’t need them. The Constitution is our only authority, and we will interpert it and the law for ourselves. Screw the court system! Well that might be great and grand. But soon you will have individuals deciding for themselves that this law was invalid, that was invalid etc. So what would happen is that the Constitution would actually lose authority…Rather than gain it.

Its the same with the Bible. I feel by rejecting Church Tradition and the magistrem. The Bible actually loses its authority. It’s pretty obvious seeing how many Scripture wars Christians get into, and how many ignore passages that don’t fit their liking. People have used the Bible to validate, slavery, (abortion (yes), murder etc. We are warned that Scripture gets twisted easily. This is something special, this is God’s Word…

I think John Paul II said Tradition in Scripture must be either explicit or implied in Scripture… The seeds of our Tradition is implied in Scripture, (even if its implied indirectly) And our Tradition must not contradict Scripture. We are in agreement too with that.

But the point is that Tradition is important, Scripture makes it important. It’s important because people twist Scripture. I want to point out that Jesus got into a debate with the Sadduces. The Saduccess were people who rejected oral tradition, and thus rejected the resurrection. The resurrection of the dead was not explicitly stated in the Jewish Scriptures, it was implied. Jesus believed in it, and his response to the Sadducess was that they do not know how to read Scripture.

Tradition is also important because well our faith is a historical faith. In class as a Protestant. The professor actually admited that the whole issue of communion comes down to "how each person chooses to interpert Scripture, because Scripture doesn’t clearly state if we should be taking Jesus words figuratively, or literally). For me I think it was the last straw, in the many times I heard this professor say, well this issue isn’t clear in Scripture, and this issue isn’t clear in Scripture. The thing is that I’m quite sure Jesus meaning was pretty clear to Him. And his meaning was pretty clear to his apostles. So wouldn’t the best way to figure out what communion means is to see what the early Church had to say. After all they were far closer to the time period than you or I. Wouldn’t we be more likely to get the correct meaning, that way??? Since they had the benefit of actually getting explained to them by the apostles. That’s kind of the whole point for us Catholics. IF you go by just Scripture alone, it becomes merly what each person thinks, making God’s word “relative”

I want to point out the system of Catholic way of doing it.

1. Scripture. (its the data as mentioned (implied or explict theology) 2. Tradition (precedent) 3. Pope/bishops make final decision in debate using Scripture/Tradition… All along with the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Honestly, I think our system, has a lot more Bibical support, than they whole idea of the individual deciding for themselves what Scripture means. Which in my mind, has no Biblical support.

 

[bekalc]

What Tradition does is too. Is it says what has the Holy Spirit said to the Church in the past. Because you know what the Holy Spirit indwells all Christians not just some. Don’t you think that if the Holy Spirit has given the Church a consensus throughout time on a major issue that the consensus might just be correct! Doesn’t that seem how the Holy Spirit would do things rather than having the Church say one thing at one time and then another 1500 years later.

What Tradition does it gives the Church a balance. It keeps us from falling into every new doctrine that comes along (or old heresy) It gives those who have died a voice!

 

[sk32900]

DNS:

You are right, we shouldn’t give pastors and teachers the same authority as the Bible; they are fallible. But the Apostles and their successors were infallible (see Mt 16:18-19 and 18:18)[Endnote 1]. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). Church Councils are infallible because they are guided by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15).

Hi DNS: I will be addressing your other points ASAP, but I wanted to discuss several of the verses you cited above, starting with 1 Timothy 3:15, which you and several others have cited several times on this thread. As you noted earlier, I’ve got an “overload” of posts to answer to, so I will do my best to quickly get to the other points you raised. Thanks again for your patience!

1 Timothy 3:15: I’ve actually come across FOUR different interpretations of this verse: the least likely ties the pillar and foundation with verse 16; another says Timothy is the pillar being referred to, since several apostles are also called pillars in Gal. 2:9; another states that God is referred to as the pillar and foundation of the truth; the fourth says it is the church of the living God. Let’s go with the last interpretation, which is your position (and as far as I can tell, is the most likely interpretation).

The pillar here could be a support, OR a type of pillar used to display statues during that time. The foundation (also translated ground or mainstay) obviously supports something. So Paul tells Timothy that the church’s responsibility or function is to display and support God’s revealed truth. But does that make the church EQUAL to the truth revealed in scripture, that is being displayed and supported? Right now I have a Styrofoam cup on my desk filled with coffee. It contains and dispenses the coffee for me (and even identifies the brand). The cup is valuable in containing and dispensing the coffee—but I consume the COFFEE, NOT the cup! Likewise, the church HAS NO FUNCTION WITHOUT THE TRUTH OF GOD’S WORD to display and support (and in this context, the truth being referred to is the gospel. The term is often equivalent to “the gospel” or “the message” [Rom. 2:2, 16; Col. 1:5; Gal. 2:14], and it clearly parallels verse 16, which summarizes the gospel). So how this verse makes church authority equal to divinely inspired scripture? If you have any other insights into this verse, please let me know.

I will be addressing the other scriptures mentioned above in my next post to you. God bless!

 

[bekalc]

sk32900:

Hi DNS: I will be addressing your other points ASAP, but I wanted to discuss several of the verses you cited above, starting with 1 Timothy 3:15, which you and several others have cited several times on this thread. As you noted earlier, I’ve got an “overload” of posts to answer to, so I will do my best to quickly get to the other points you raised. Thanks again for your patience!

1 Timothy 3:15: I’ve actually come across FOUR different interpretations of this verse: the least likely ties the pillar and foundation with verse 16; another says Timothy is the pillar being referred to, since several apostles are also called pillars in Gal. 2:9; another states that God is referred to as the pillar and foundation of the truth; the fourth says it is the church of the living God. Let’s go with the last interpretation, which is your position (and as far as I can tell, is the most likely interpretation).

The pillar here could be a support, OR a type of pillar used to display statues during that time. The foundation (also translated ground or mainstay) obviously supports something. So Paul tells Timothy that the church’s responsibility or function is to display and support God’s revealed truth. But does that make the church EQUAL to the truth revealed in scripture, that is being displayed and supported? Right now I have a Styrofoam cup on my desk filled with coffee. It contains and dispenses the coffee for me (and even identifies the brand). The cup is valuable in containing and dispensing the coffee—but I consume the COFFEE, NOT the cup! Likewise, the church HAS NO FUNCTION WITHOUT THE TRUTH OF GOD’S WORD to display and support (and in this context, the truth being referred to is the gospel. The term is often equivalent to “the gospel” or “the message” [Rom. 2:2, 16; Col. 1:5; Gal. 2:14], and it clearly parallels verse 16, which summarizes the gospel). So how this verse makes church authority equal to divinely inspired scripture? If you have any other insights into this verse, please let me know.

I will be addressing the other scriptures mentioned above in my next post to you. God bless!

Sky, you cannot drink coffee without the Cup. Plus, according to the catechism our leaders are Under the Word of God. It’s just the Word needs someone to proclaim it and that’s the Church.

 

[bekalc]

Besides you just kind of with your interpertation gave us our reason. If the Church is the one built to support the Word of God, and have the Word of God. Then its the Church’s job to teach God’s Word? God has entrusted His Word to the Church.

'All the Catholic Church is claiming is that since God gave the Word of God to them, and entrusted them with it, that they are the ones with the authority to interpert it.

God did not give the gospel to Martin Luther, Martin Luther received it from the Catholics. Basically what Protestants say is. We will take the Catholics book, and well the Trinity and Jesus.

But we think you Catholics are interperting the Book incorrectly. vRather, we should be the ones interperting the Book you gave us. Since the Church fathers didn’t agree with your Doctrines either, well than you have a sticky situation where the people who cannonized the Scriptures were incorrect on baptism and the sacraments, justification and salvation, authority,and all kinds of issues. We don’t know how you guys can accept the Bible and the Trinity from the Church but say the Church is wrong on everything else, and doesn’t even have the right to interpert the Word of God, God gave the Church to proclaim. Her own message.

 

[sk32900]

DNS:

But the Apostles and their successors were infallible (see Mt 16:18-19 and 18:18)[Endnote 1]. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). Church Councils are infallible because they are guided by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15).

Hi DNS: Here are some of my thoughts on Matthew 16:17-19 and 18:18-20 (sorry it took so long):

17And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18“I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:17-19, NASB)

18“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
19“Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. 20“For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst” (Matthew 18:18-20, NASB)

First consideration: Who is the “rock” on which the church is built? Most evangelical commentators say (surprise) that it is Peter’s confession that is the “petra” (mountain of rock) upon which the church is built, while Peter is the “petros” or small stone. One Protestant commentator I came across, however, disputes this: “The name of Peter is not here bestowed, but interpreted … Unquestionably, the apostle is the rock on which the Church is built” (Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture, Matthew IX-XXVIII, p. 325). He adds that “it was not the ‘flesh and blood’ Peter, but Peter as the recipient and faithful utterer of the divine inspiration in his confession, who receives these privileges. Therefore they are not his exclusive property, but belong to his faith … wherever that faith is, there are these gifts, which are its results” (p. 326).

I’m not so much debating this point as searching it out (It would have been just as easy for me to spout the “evangelical response”). If Peter did NOT have a foundational role as the “rock” in establishing the church, why would Jesus have even bothered with the “petros/petra” wordplay to start with? Maybe Jesus meant that “small stone” Peter would, in his foundational role, be an imitation of the “petra,” who is Jesus (Alert: that’s speculation on my part). I’m not saying this automatically leads to an “apostolic succession” doctrine; however, I’m not really sold on the typical evangelical view, of which MacLaren says, “We do not interpret other books in that fashion” (p. 326).

“Binding and loosing”: My understanding is that this deals with forbidding and permitting. Note that this same privilege given to Peter in Matthew 16:19 is given to ALL the apostles in 18:18 (in this instance, church discipline is the subject). The principle that Jesus states in verses 19-20 appears to apply even outside the apostolic circle to other believers. One other note: the Greek indicates that what is “bound in heaven” (or “loosed”) has already been done so—it’s in the past tense (as the above translation reflects). In other words, any church pronouncements will be in accordance with what is ALREADY God’s revealed will (which is in the scriptures).

“Keys of the kingdom”: Peter did indeed use these keys of the kingdom, to open the doors of the church—through salvation by faith in Jesus—to the Jews in Acts 2 and the Gentiles in Acts 10. Again, it appears this same authority was given to the other apostles (John 20:22-23).

We must also look at Ephesians 2:20, where Paul says all the apostles (and the prophets, whether OT or NT, or maybe both) are the foundation of the church (so far as the apostles are concerned, this is further confirmed in Rev. 21:14), with Jesus being the chief cornerstone. As I stated, Peter did have a critical foundational role in establishing the church. But in light of the verses I cited above, I don’t see where we can establish Peter as the SOLE “rock” on which the church was built (a side question: if the pope is Peter’s successor, would the College of Cardinals or Magisterium be considered successors to the remainder of the apostles? The question may be totally off base, but I’m trying to get a better grasp of the Catholic view, so please let me know if I’m off base on this point and how far).

I’ll get to you on Acts 15 and the other points ASAP. Thanks again for hearing me out, and God bless!

 

[DNS]

sk32900,

I’ve seen your latest posts, but would like to respond to your last post on 2 Tim 3:16-17 first.

sk32900:

Perhaps our main difference lies in where teaching authority is compared to the Bible. The Bible shows that there are those gifted by the Holy Spirit to teach the Body of Christ (Ephesians 4:11; James 3:1). I believe that any Christian pastor or teacher needs to have a “court of final appeal” which would be God’s written revelation in the Bible.

Even if the Bible were a pastor’s “court of final appeal” he cannot be sure his interpretation of it is correct. That is why God set up an infallible Church. I will address your thoughts on the scripture passages I gave in support of an infallible Church (1 Tim 3:15; Mt 16:18-19, 18:18; Acts 15) in upcoming posts.

sk32900:

Your position, if I understand it correctly, is that our final authority is the Bible and Catholic Church tradition together. Does this mean that it’s an either/or proposition—that either the Bible or the church tradition can serve as our final authority on questions of faith? (My understanding also is that Catholic Tradition cannot contradict the Bible).

I believe our final authority is the Bible, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium (teaching authority of the Church). The three can never contradict each other, and are not to be approached in an either/or, but a both/and, fashion.

sk32900:

Again, my view is that the Bible is our FINAL authority. While all churches have their traditions, those traditions are SUBSERVIENT and secondary to the written word of God. I also believe that any tradition that was orally passed down in the NT times in now contained in the written Word that we now have in the NT. You claimed that 1 Thess. 2:13 shows that oral tradition was also called the word of God. But is the word of God they heard from Paul at that time now recorded in Scripture?

As stated above, if the Bible alone is our final authority, we are left with our private, fallible interpretation of the sacred text, and have no assurance that we are doing what God commanded.

Sacred Tradition is not subservient to the Bible; both have equal authority, the Bible being the written Word of God and Sacred Tradition being the Word of God passed down orally to us from the Apostles. All other traditions are subservient to scripture.

The Bible never says whether the whole of Sacred Tradition was committed to writing; we just cannot tell from scripture alone. Even if it is (which is my position)[Endnote 1], that would not negate the need for Sacred Tradition and an infallible Church, because much of it would not be found clearly enough for us to draw it out ourselves.

sk32900:

“The idea that Jesus—the living Word of God …—would have believed and practiced the proposition that all doctrine must be proved by the written word of God is absurd on its face,” James Akin claims. All I could think about when I read this was Jesus’ repeated appeals to the written OT record, especially in dealing with the religious authorities of the day.

Jesus did repeatedly appeal to scripture, as every good Christian should. However, this just does not prove that Jesus practiced Sola Scriptura. (Perhaps that is not what you were asserting.)

sk32900:

My understanding of the position you and Akin present is that just because the written Word makes us complete, doesn’t mean that written scripture is complete within itself. But it must be asked at this point if God would leave something important out of the only direct written revelation received from Jesus and the apostles. We both agree that Christians are to handle the word of God correctly (2 Timothy 2:15). If a new Christian has trouble understanding parts of the Bible (while the Bible’s ESSENTIAL doctrines that regard salvation are clear, other things, as Peter admits in 2 Peter 3:16, may be “hard to understand”), he or she should go to a teacher or pastor that God has raised up to help them (leaders, that is, who live their lives and teach their doctrine in accordance with God’s written word). That we would need an equal authority in the form of Catholic tradition (which, as I pointed out to b-justb in another post regarding the apocrypha, can be inconsistent) seems foreign to the NT.

This post is already very long; I’ll respond to the above quote and your points on Akin’s article next time.

Endnotes
1 In my next post I’ll make clear what I mean when I say I believe the whole of Sacred Tradition is recorded in scripture.

God bless,