M
Mystophilus
Guest
They never needed to, since Carthage was not making decisions for them.
Does catholic Tradition outside of scripture come from man and not GOD?
- Status
M
Mystophilus
Guest
I would agree, but for the fear that the same SS Protestant’s answer will be “The only true Bible, the KJV.”So when a protestant comes forward with the argument “All you need is the Holy Bible”, the very first question out of our mouths should be “Which one?”
C
CatholicHockey7
Guest
That’s where you challenge them with two questions on authority:
1.) How do you know the Scriptures you have are the authoritative rule of faith?
Even if you accept their circular reasoning, they still have to answer:
2.) Who has the authority to authentically define what Scripture means?
This inevitably leads to more circular reasoning because many will respond “only the Holy Spirit can do that for us.” So how do you know who’s been led by the Holy Spirit to the correct answer? A quick look at protestant theology shows not everyone comes up with A=A. Sometimes we get A=B, others get A=C, and on it goes.
J
JRKH
Guest
My reply to this, back in my more smart-alec days would be - “OH the one missing 7 books.” That usually got a raised eyebrow and further discussion…
But being more serious now, I would ask - “Based on what?”
It’s not the oldest, it’s not the most widely used, the canon it contains was not determined by council (the biblical method), etc. So what makes you believe that the canon, and the translation known as the KJV is the right and correct one?
Part of the problem for a Bible Only Christian - especially one like the OP who espouses self study is that IF, in their self study - and not listening to any non-biblical source - they had picked up a different bible canon (not knowing there were differing canons) they could very reasonably come up with different understandings.
The only reason that such a person would assert that the KJV is the only correct one is because a man told them it was Thus they are holding to a “man made tradition”.
Peace
James
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
They wouldn’t have. However, they wouldn’t have abided by it, since the Eastern canon was larger than that at Carthage. They would have disagreed in that they would have thought Carthage was missing a few books.
M
MacQ
Guest
Excellent points.
I would also add that even if everyone agreed on a given translation, self study can result in glaring misinterpretations.
With the benefit of a scholar who can give one the context: the language nuances, the culture, the writers intent and audience of a given passage, it’s pretty amazing how that influences the meaning of what you’re reading.
But my limited experience is that SS Christians do not want that.
J
JRKH
Guest
Which again - only feeds into the idea that the canon of Scripture was not a contentious issue in the early Church.
Which raises the question - when the Canon was being determined - What did the Bishops have in mind?
My understanding was that the main reason for coming together and defining a canon was to have the same set of books being used in the Liturgy everywhere. Not to set a single source for doctrine.
Am I mistaken in this?
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
Yes - which is why Scripture does not approve of “self study” but only study within the Church.
The oft used reference to the Bereans doesn’t even point to self study but rather study in a group…where each person’s view can be tested and refined.
Amen
Well it depends on which SS tradition you are looking at. Lutherans and Anglicans do not have a problem with it - - However those we might call “bible Christians” - the more non-denominational - Evangelical types are certainly less inclined toward truly embracing the biblical model - except in a very narrow and local sense.
Peace
James
P
pablope
Guest
What an irony, isn’t it…those bishops at Carthage were mostly North African bishops, part of the East part of the Church…
So can you provide the objections of those from the East where in they said Carthage was missing a few books?
C
CatholicHockey7
Guest
James, you’re not totally wrong. A common source for the Liturgy was a driving force. But it was also because there were writings out there being used to justify heretical beliefs. The early councils met and considered all of the documents being used.
They needed a common source for Liturgy, but also a common source for doctrine.
One of the ways they determined inspiration at these councils was comparing what was written with what had been handed on through Sacred Tradition.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
I don’t think you’re mistaken at all. I don’t even believe they were addressing whether the texts were inspired. Canonical doesn’t equal inspired.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
They were not under an Eastern Patriarch.What an irony, isn’t it…those bishops at Carthage were mostly North African bishops, part of the East part of the Church…
They didn’t, but as Myst said, they didn’t have to because the canon decision of Carthage didn’t affect Eastern patriarchates. Even today, though, the Eastern canon is still larger.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Carthage was Latin-speaking, i.e. West, not East.What an irony, isn’t it…those bishops at Carthage were mostly North African bishops, part of the East part of the Church…
M
Mystophilus
Guest
I am afraid that my encounters with KJVonlyists have generally justified Jonathan Swift’s comment that you cannot reason someone out of position which they were never reasoned into.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
I have not seen any evidence of contention, no, but *language *is an important factor which people seem to be overlooking here.
Remember that the West, including Carthage, were reading Latin translations of the Scriptures. Those translations varied, as translations do today, and the Western part of the Church felt the need to get some coherence on that. Thus, they engaged Jerome to provide a coherent translation, the original Vulgate.
You can see some of the discussion between Augustine (of Hippo, just along the coast from Carthage) and Jerome about the translation project here (the same letters are available at newadvent, but they are helpfully grouped here). Augustine’s great esteem for the Septuagint was based upon what had traditionally been used in the Church, and was evidently the basis for the East’s not feeling a need to impose rules on it.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
I think that it was starting to: Augustine defines his esteem for the Septuagint (especially in his disagreement with Jerome over whether the Hebrew or the LXX were a better source for the OT) in terms of the Western Church’s *traditional *use of the Septuagintal books. That usage of tradition as validation seems to be heading towards the idea of inspired canonicity, although perhaps not quite there yet.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
I usually just back away with my hands in the air. As you say, the circular reasoning starts to come thick and fast, and I tend to feel that, as is often the case with firmly-held beliefs, is does not actually address the true motivations for those beliefs and is thus a red herring anyway.
J
JRKH
Guest
Thank you both for these clarifications.
Great Stuff.
I hope that excaliber’s girlfriend is getting a lot of good information to prayerfully contemplate.
Peace
James
A
andrewstx
Guest
This reminds me so much of the teachings of the fundamental sect that I left.
“From the bible [alone] is from God. Not from the bible verbatim is only from humanity [man]”
I have rejected that doctrine completely. First because I don’t believe that God dictated the
bible verbatim. And there were many years before the NT was written and canonized. During that time the only thing the church had to go buy was only Holy Tradition.
- Status