How we know the Bible is the innerrant, inspired Word of God

[heiscominginthe]

It is written that Jesus Christ is the Word of God. So how do we recognize or discern what is and is not of God? If Jesus is the Word of God, and he is, when a man repents of his sins and is forgiven, Jesus comes and lives inside the man, and the Word of God is written on the fleshly tablets of the heart.

Jesus said those who are his will hear his voice. So those who have him in their hearts will know which bible is the infallible Word of God. For those who walk in the that same spirit of truth known as the Holy Spirit will hear his voice. For the written Word and the Holy Spirit will never be contrary to eachother.

 

[Contarini]

Let’s consider the logic of your position in light of the Word of God, shall we?

Not if you are seriously defending the OP. The argument set forth there is that the infallibility of the Church can be established from the Bible treated as just another ancient historical text and *not *as the Word of God. If you really agree with this, you need to argue accordingly. Your reflexive use of the phrase “Word of God” shows just how counterintuitive and indeed unnatural this entire way of proceeding is for any devout Christian when considering matters of Christian theology.

I will try to address both points in what follows: what these passages show if taken simply as extracts from ancient documents, and what they show if accepted as the Word of God. But in light of the OP, my emphasis will naturally be on the former.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church

But it is far from certain that Jesus said these words. Even many devout Christians (including Catholic scholars) think that this is a theological interpretation by Matthew and not a word-for-word transcript of what Jesus said. I don’t think you could find a single secular scholar who thinks that Jesus said these words. The primary argument is that this is not found in the Marcan version of the story (Mark 8:27-30). Given that most scholars think that Mark was written first and Matthew used Mark as a source, the most likely possibility is that Matthew elaborated the story for his own theological reasons. It is of course possible that Matthew knew more details from some other source, but this isn’t the most likely alternative if we are looking at this as just another ancient text. Bear in mind that to refute the OP I don’t need to prove that this is an elaboration by Matthew, but only to show that there is reasonable doubt on the subject. The OP does not say that it’s possible that Jesus established an “infallible” Church… It claims to be able to prove that he did. I will not repeat these points in each instance below, but they apply throughout.

and that Church ever fell into total doctrinal error

You’re fudging by inserting the word “total.” Infallibility doesn’t just exclude “total” error (that would be “indefectibility,” which most Christians believe in, though not necessarily ascribing it to the See of Rome). It excludes any error in the Church’s official teaching. Therefore, by your own tacit admission this text does not teach infallibility but only indefectibility.

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Again, it’s notable that this is found only in Matthew. This is not very solid historical evidence that Jesus actually said these words. Most scholars would conclude instead that this is something added by Matthew.

**

Q:

**

If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the nearly 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?

Why not? You are assuming that Jesus will not be present with the Church if it teaches any error at all in its official teaching. This does not seem like a reasonable assumption.

John 14:15-16

15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Again, the vast majority of scholars do not think that the speeches ascribed to Jesus in John are transcripts of what He actually said. (In fact, there are practically no scholars, even conservative Christian ones, who deny that John contains a great deal of later theological interpretation both in the narratives and the speeches). Some would deny John any historical value at all; others would say that John can be used as a historical source but with great caution and awareness that most of the long speeches are later creations.This of course applies to all the Johannine passages you cite.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus not give the Counselor or did the Counselor simply fail to remain with the Church “forever”?

See above. You continue to assume an unreasonable ecclesiological perfectionism for which you provide no argument (you apparently think it’s self-evident; it isn’t).

 

[Contarini]

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

This either refers to the first-century Church (in which case it doesn’t prove that the Church would always remember and transmit these things perfectly and would not need occasional reminders), or to the ongoing interpretation and application of the truth by the Church (in which case it doesn’t guarantee that there wouldn’t be plenty of bumps along the way, or that upstart reformers might not sometimes be part of the process).

[

John 16:13

](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=16&verse=13&version=31&context=verse)

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?

Again, this either refers to the first-century Church or to an ongoing process that is presumably not finished.

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

At this point we are no longer dealing with a text that anyone claims to be a record of what Jesus says. Perhaps you are building on the assumption that this text is by an eyewitness of Jesus’ deeds and words. That still doesn’t prove what you need, and of course, yet again most scholars would not agree that this text was written by one of Jesus’ original disciples.

And more to the point here, denial of infallibility in no way constitutes claiming that Satan is stronger than Jesus, any more than does the obvious observation that Christians sin.

**

1 Timothy 3:13

**

15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Again, this isn’t something said by Jesus; the ostensible author did not know Jesus (except in a post-resurrection vision); and most scholars think it wasn’t by Paul anyway but was written some time after Paul’s death.

Mark 3:27

27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Finally you give a citation from a text that most scholars would agree is one of our earliest witnesses to what Jesus said and did (the other such texts would be the undisputed letters of Paul). It still isn’t beyond dispute that Jesus actually said this, but at least it can be claimed to be quite likely. However, this text does not speak about infallibility.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

It’s quite a stretch to make this apply to infallibility. The text is talking about Jesus casting out demons. No scholar using a strictly historical approach to the text would see any relevance to your interpretation. Theologically, I would be disposed to agree that this points toward the continued existence of the Church as a witness and continuation of Jesus’ victory against the powers of darkness. But again, this does not prove infallibility–only indefectibility.

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error?

Certainly.

Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history.

If by “went off the rails” you mean occasionally falling into official doctrinal error, just as the leaders and members of the Church have demonstrably sinned and erred in other ways, then I think you are stretching the texts far beyond what they will maintain. If you are talking about total apostasy, then you have a point (though not on the grounds of the purely historical approach allegedly maintained by the OP). But as a matter of fact almost no Protestants claim that the Church ever apostasized totally. Those who think that the “Roman Catholic Church” is apostate would either maintain some kind of “Trail of Blood” theory or place the full apostasy after the Reformation (with the Council of Trent), thus in both cases preserving the belief that some kind of Church has always existed (underground and persecuted in one case; greatly corrupt in both practice and doctrine but still a true Church in the other; and of course nothing prevents Protestants from maintaining both views at once).

Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time.

That is not a theologically controversial claim! Christians differ on what it means, however.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Please clarify this for me.

Are you saying that the Bible is not historically accurate or that we do not know with certainty that the text which we have is reliable.

Two different things…

Indeed. Both are problems for a strict inerrancy position, let alone for the purely historical argument from the Bible’s accuracy that the OP is making. (Please note the important distinction between what I believe about the Bible and what I think can be historically proven about the Bible.) However, the latter is by far the more important issue. Given the wide variety and relative antiquity of our NT texts, we have a relative degree of certainty that the critical texts assembled by modern scholars bear a close resemblance to the original (and an even greater degree of certainty that the original corresponds at every point pretty closely to at least one of the manuscripts we have; in other words, even if scholars err they are most likely erring by picking the wrong variant). The fear that the original text is something radically different from anything we have today is usually promoted by people completely ignorant of textual criticism (note that even Bart Ehrman, who pushes the textual argument against Christianity as far as it will reasonably go and maybe a bit further, does not make such a claim).

No, the far more serious issue is how the “original” texts relate to the events they describe, and in the case of letters and other such texts whether they are written by the persons whose name they bear.

There is a wide variety of scholarly opinion on this point, but no reasonable construction of the scholarly consensus will support the argument the OP is making.

Edwin

 

[JRKH]

Contarini,
Glancing through your replies above, they strike me as having a rather secular rather than faithful bent. The prime example of that is where you say, regading Matthew 16:18:
The primary argument is that this is not found in the Marcan version of the story (Mark 8:27-30). Given that most scholars think that Mark was written first and Matthew used Mark as a source, the most likely possibility is that Matthew elaborated the story for his own theological reasons. It is of course possible that Matthew knew more details from some other source, but this isn’t the most likely alternative if we are looking at this as just another ancient text.
Your whole assertion in this is that, because the same words are not recorded in Mark, it somehow makes the passage suspect. If we begin looking at the Canonized Gospels with such suspicion we begin to undermine the very foundation of "The Written Word of God. Thus playing right into the snares of the Evil One.
By asserting that Matthew had, “His own theological reasons” it seems that one is accepting that the Gospels themselves are defective - That there may be some other “Agenda” involved than the spreading of the Good News of the Kingdom and the building up of the One True Church.
The Church, when it canonized both Mark and Matthew, knew of these differences. So did the Holy Spirit. Yet the Spirit moved the Church to include both books in the canon of Scripture. This, to me, means we need to accept the divinely inspired validity of both books and not be trying to discect them in the way you put forth.

Finally I would suggest two things. First, since it is accepted that Mark was written first, Matthew may simply have been adding details that Mark did not include because, in the case of verse M16:18, they were already widely accepted - That being that Peter was the leader of the Apostles.
Second, we need to remember that the Mark of the Gospel was a disciple of Peter and not one of the Original twelve Apostle and therefore would not have been present at Caesarea Phillippi with Jesus and the twelve. Matthew, on the other hand was and did choose to include this passage. What agenda could The Holy Spirit have had for inspiring Matthew to record this other than to demonstrate for us the primacy of Peter and the validity of Church Authority.

Peace
James

 

[Contarini]

Contarini,
Glancing through your replies above, they strike me as having a rather secular rather than faithful bent.

Did you bother reading the OP? The argument to which I’m responding is that by purely historical methods one can establish that Jesus founded an infallible Church. This is the rhetorical trap set up by all such arguments. If you take their premises seriously, people start accusing you of undermining the faith.

The prime example of that is where you say, regading Matthew 16:18: The primary argument is that this is not found in the Marcan version of the story (Mark 8:27-30). Given that most scholars think that Mark was written first and Matthew used Mark as a source, the most likely possibility is that Matthew elaborated the story for his own theological reasons. It is of course possible that Matthew knew more details from some other source, but this isn’t the most likely alternative if we are looking at this as just another ancient text. Your whole assertion in this is that, because the same words are not recorded in Mark, it somehow makes the passage suspect.

Any historian looking at an ancient text would compare various accounts and would look with some suspicion on details in an apparently later account not found in an earlier one. This doesn’t mean that these details might not come from some independent source. Historians largely deal in probability, not certainty. Therefore, if your understanding of the nature of Scripture requires you to believe that Matthew gives us more or less exact transcripts of what Jesus said and did, I don’t think the historian can say that you are foolish or irrational. But you can’t in all honesty claim to have gotten there through purely historical analysis. Hence the OP’s argument fails.

My understanding of the nature of the Gospel of Matthew does not rule out the possibility that some of the things ascribed to Jesus are Matthew’s interpretation of what Jesus said and did. Precisely because I believe the author of Matthew to have been divinely inspired, I have no problem with the idea that the details found in Matthew and not Mark are an elaboration of the meaning of Peter’s confession for later Christian faith. However, this has now become a theological issue about our understanding of Scripture and is irrelevant for the OP.

If we begin looking at the Canonized Gospels with such suspicion we begin to undermine the very foundation of "The Written Word of God. Thus playing right into the snares of the Evil One.

You need to take this up with the OP.

By asserting that Matthew had, “His own theological reasons” it seems that one is accepting that the Gospels themselves are defective - That there may be some other “Agenda” involved than the spreading of the Good News of the Kingdom and the building up of the One True Church.

Not at all. You are the one using excessive suspicion in your interpretation of what I am saying.

The Church, when it canonized both Mark and Matthew, knew of these differences. So did the Holy Spirit. Yet the Spirit moved the Church to include both books in the canon of Scripture. This, to me, means we need to accept the divinely inspired validity of both books and not be trying to discect them in the way you put forth.

Again, take this up with the OP. Don’t blame me for arguing with the OP on the OP’s own premises.

Finally I would suggest two things. First, since it is accepted that Mark was written first,

Not by everyone. Since you seem to believe that Matthew is indeed written by the apostle Matthew, you ought to be questioning Marcan priority. I think that Marcan priority makes literal Matthaean authorship of the Gospel as we have it almost impossible. However, there is a substantial minority tradition within the scholarship that favors Matthaean priority. In my opinion that does make actual Matthaean authorship more likely. I have often speculated (assuming the majority position of Marcan priority) that Matthew may have been the authorof the collection of Jesus’ sayings which scholars traditionally call “Q,” and that this may be why Papias and other early Christian writers ascribed authorship of the whole Gospel to Matthew. However, this may not hold up on scholarly grounds–I am certainly not an expert in NT scholarship.

Matthew may simply have been adding details that Mark did not include because, in the case of verse M16:18, they were already widely accepted - That being that Peter was the leader of the Apostles.

This is possible. But using normal historical methods it’s not very likely. It’s the sort of thing one will only believe if compelled by one’s faith commitments to do so.

Second, we need to remember that the Mark of the Gospel was a disciple of Peter and not one of the Original twelve Apostle and therefore would not have been present at Caesarea Phillippi with Jesus and the twelve. Matthew, on the other hand was

See above. If you accept Marcan priority, this makes no sense. Why would an eyewitness borrow so heavily from the writing of a non-eyewitness?

Edwin

 

[JRKH]

Did you bother reading the OP? The argument to which I’m responding is that by purely historical methods one can establish that Jesus founded an infallible Church. This is the rhetorical trap set up by all such arguments. If you take their premises seriously, people start accusing you of undermining the faith.

You are quite right and I apologize.
Unfortunately I have been unable to consistantly follow the threads and I failed to recognize your arguments within the proper context.

Any historian looking at an ancient text would compare various accounts and would look with some suspicion on details in an apparently later account not found in an earlier one. This doesn’t mean that these details might not come from some independent source. Historians largely deal in probability, not certainty. Therefore, if your understanding of the nature of Scripture requires you to believe that Matthew gives us more or less exact transcripts of what Jesus said and did, I don’t think the historian can say that you are foolish or irrational. But you can’t in all honesty claim to have gotten there through purely historical analysis. Hence the OP’s argument fails.

Yes this makes sense. However I would suggest that even in the field of “historical analysis” one cannot get completely away from personal bias - particularly when one is trying to deal with “Probabilities”
In addition, if one is looking at several accounts written at more or less the same time and by persons closely associated with the principal characters it does effect some of the probabilites I would think.

My understanding of the nature of the Gospel of Matthew does not rule out the possibility that some of the things ascribed to Jesus are Matthew’s interpretation of what Jesus said and did. Precisely because I believe the author of Matthew to have been divinely inspired, I have no problem with the idea that the details found in Matthew and not Mark are an elaboration of the meaning of Peter’s confession for later Christian faith. However, this has now become a theological issue about our understanding of Scripture and is irrelevant for the OP.

Agreed. From a purely historical viewpoint it would be nice if the “Rock” passage were included in more than one Gospel. From the theological standpoint it might also be better since if it were written “similarly” but not identically it might shed some light on the interpretation.

You need to take this up with the OP.

Not at all. You are the one using excessive suspicion in your interpretation of what I am saying.

Again, take this up with the OP. Don’t blame me for arguing with the OP on the OP’s own premises.

Quite right - And I do apologize for the tone in my responses.

Not by everyone. Since you seem to believe that Matthew is indeed written by the apostle Matthew, you ought to be questioning Marcan priority. I think that Marcan priority makes literal Matthaean authorship of the Gospel as we have it almost impossible. However, there is a substantial minority tradition within the scholarship that favors Matthaean priority. In my opinion that does make actual Matthaean authorship more likely. I have often speculated (assuming the majority position of Marcan priority) that Matthew may have been the authorof the collection of Jesus’ sayings which scholars traditionally call “Q,” and that this may be why Papias and other early Christian writers ascribed authorship of the whole Gospel to Matthew. However, this may not hold up on scholarly grounds–I am certainly not an expert in NT scholarship.

Therein lies the rub for much of trying understand the Gospels as History just by using the “Bible”. We do not have the original manuscripts nor has anyone clearly identified “Q”.
However I tend to like your explaination about the “Q” authorship. In fact I was reading the introduction to Matthew in my Bible (NAB) and thinking the same thing. That Papias, in refering to Matthew’s having - recorded a collection of Jesus’ “sayings” written “in the Hebrew Tongue” and that then “each person translated them as he was able” - could well be refering to that source material that the synoptic Gospels drew upon.

Matthew may simply have been adding details that Mark did not include because, in the case of verse M16:18, they were already widely accepted - That being that Peter was the leader of the Apostles.

This is possible. But using normal historical methods it’s not very likely. It’s the sort of thing one will only believe if compelled by one’s faith commitments to do so.

I’m not sure why this would be unlikely in the historical sense given the relatively concurrent time in which the Gospels were written.
Of course I’m not a professional historian so I am neither blessed by, or constricted by, the commonly held and used methods of the Professional Historian .

See above. If you accept Marcan priority, this makes no sense. Why would an eyewitness borrow so heavily from the writing of a non-eyewitness?

Kind of brings us back to the “Q” issue huh

Peace
James

 

[distracted]

Not to put too fine a point on this, but could you tell us precisely when God impressed upon you that each of the individual books were truly inspired?

Did He give you the complete list all at once or one book at a time?

And what exactly is it about 3 John that you find so compelling? Jesus is never even mentioned in the entire epistle, so I’m curious why that book struck you as inspired whereas the Didache or Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians did not.

huh???

i didn’t even mention 3 Jn in my post… or the Didache or Clement’s letter…

 

[Dhugz]

Anyway, it is hard to teach those who are in group of Anti Christ-the Protestants. They are trying to interpret the Bible on their own! Where did they Get the Bible? Of course thru the Council of The Catholic Church we have that Bible! And without Catholic Church, they dont have that Bible! They want to interpret the bible to support their doctrines. At the time of the apostles, they dont have the Bible, and to solve the disputes regarding to the doctrine of the Church, they conduct Council of Jerusalem(act of apostles), they didnt go to their own Knowledge, that is why the Catholic Church called the series of Councils, to solve the disputes in the Church.Did you know that they Made the Bible to solve the disputes also? To compiled which and which are not inspired, or they select books which or which is not to be included in the Bible! The word Bible is made by Catholic Church! How these protestants want to Attack the Church thru its own Holy Book?! You protestants, make your own Book! The Bible you are using is the Book of The Catholic Church! If you believe that The Catholic Church in the first century is suffered total apostacy, then the Bible we have now is also in error! Why? Because the Bible is campiled around 265-365 Ad!! Several centuries is past before the books in the Bible is Compiled. . . .And the Catholic Church is kept these Books until the invention of printing is Made! How great is the Catholic Church! If these Protestant people believe that the Early Church is in total error then the whole Christianity is in Error! Of course not! They believe that the Bible is a word of God, and those who compiled the Bible is Guided by God, therefore believe it or not! The Catholic Church is the Church guided by God! Because it is the Church founded by Christ, they provide the Bible to the world!

 

[heiscominginthe]

Anyway, it is hard to teach those who are in group of Anti Christ-the Protestants. They are trying to interpret the Bible on their own! Where did they Get the Bible?

Where is it written that priests, bishops, deacons, those holding office in church are the only to receive revelations from the Most High?

You want to know where the bible came from, the answer is simple. The apostles were given truths by way of the Holy Spirit which they shared with all the churches and all churches received the same teachings so that they would be in one accord.

It was never meant that doctrine was only to be interpreted by those holding office. Those holding office in church do not have a monopoly of Godly inspiration which comes by way of the unction of the Holy Spirit of God.

When a truth or revelation was, is given a man, it was to be proved and reproved to be of God. So when proved, it was acceptable as doctrine.

As for interpretation of anything I write on this forum I ask all to prove and reprove, for that is the way of the Lord.

And if it cannot be disproven, would it not be acceptable as truth?

I believe the doctrine is already in place. It is the many different and diverse interpretations that cause men to fall. This was brought on by the corruption of God’s Holy Writ.

I believe the Authorized King James Bible is the infallible Word of God and if any choose to dispute it, feel free. As for my faith, I stand on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for there are no denominations in heaven and nor should be on earth.

His Word Is My Sword.

 

[JRKH]

Anyway, it is hard to teach those who are in group of Anti Christ-the Protestants.

Dhugz,
Please refrain from these kinds of inflamatory remarks directed at our seperated bretheren. Such remarks are counter-productive and in violation of the rules of this forum. In addition they violate the teachings of the Church as regards evangelization.

I can assure you that the rest of the points you made in your post are lost by your target audience because of the inflamatory opening remark.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Where is it written that priests, bishops, deacons, those holding office in church are the only to receive revelations from the Most High?

That is simple. No-where that I know of. Christ reveals himself to whom He chooses.
I would ask in return where it is written (in the Bible) that the Bible is the sole rule of faith?

You want to know where the bible came from, the answer is simple. The apostles were given truths by way of the Holy Spirit which they shared with all the churches and all churches received the same teachings so that they would be in one accord.

Excellant point. And in the course of this sharing and teaching several hundred documents were produced including such works as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas, Judas, Peter…
Then there are the Letters of Paul, Peter, James, Clement, Barnabas…
Add to this the other Books such as Revelation, the Apocalypse of Peter, Shepard of Hermas, secret book of James and so on…
It is easy to see that the early Church had much material written and circulated and taught from as being apostolically valid and inspired. You’ll note however that not ALL of these documents were included in the canon of the Bible. So it is evident that your statement above is a bit of an oversimplification of the task faced by the Church in compiling the canon of the Bible.
You are perfectly correct in your last point that the church wished for all to be in one accord. This is why The Chuch, which had already been teaching and interpreting for 300 plus years without the benefit of the canonized NT, decided to create said canon.
Now it certainly seems obvious that The Church, which had been teaching orally under the guidance of the Holy Spirit for so long, would have a really good idea of what the proper meanings are of the various passages in the Bible texts. So the Sola Scriptura notion that one can seperate the Bible from the Church is a false one.
I’ll explain a bit more below.

It was never meant that doctrine was only to be interpreted by those holding office. Those holding office in church do not have a monopoly of Godly inspiration which comes by way of the unction of the Holy Spirit of God.

In one sense you are correct. The Holy Spirit can and does provide personal guidance to individuals in interpreting scripture. However the Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself. So when you have different Church communities holding different doctrines based upon the same Bible Passages, there is something amiss.
This is where the Church authority comes in AND the idea of being, “in one accord”, comes in. When there are disagreements it is the Church, through her Christ Given teaching authority, that is to resolve them. The prime example of this is the Council of Jerusalem in Acts. Even though the problem of mosaic Law came up from one Church location, the decision made in council was to be followed by all the Christian communities - In One Accord.
Jesus Himself gives the Church this authority in Matthew 18:15-18 where he tells the disciples to “Tell it to the Church”.

When a truth or revelation was, is given a man, it was to be proved and reproved to be of God. So when proved, it was acceptable as doctrine.

And it is precisely this proof and reproof that is the crux of Church authority for it provides the structure for said proof. Now obviously simply trying to come to agreement within the community without an authoritative “tie breaker” leadership only results in more fracturing as witnessed by the number of non-catholic christian communities around today.

As for interpretation of anything I write on this forum I ask all to prove and reprove, for that is the way of the Lord.

And if it cannot be disproven, would it not be acceptable as truth?

I believe the doctrine is already in place. It is the many different and diverse interpretations that cause men to fall. This was brought on by the corruption of God’s Holy Writ.

And again we have the question of how do you or I prove or disprove a “doctrine” or interpretation without a final authority - a final arbiter. This is what The Church provides, per Christ’s instruction, through the magesterium.

I believe the Authorized King James Bible is the infallible Word of God and if any choose to dispute it, feel free. As for my faith, I stand on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for there are no denominations in heaven and nor should be on earth.

His Word Is My Sword.

While this entire post is off the OP topic, a discussion of Bible versions is worthy of it’s own thread. I invite you to start one if you would like.
Personally I believe that JESUS CHRIST is the infallible Word of God and I stand upon Him and His Word as given to His Church and passed down unbroken through Her. That includes a Bible which contains ALL 72 of the books canonized in council and reproofed by at least 7 additional councils between the years 400 AD and 1500 AD (All prior to Trent).
So - Since The Revelation of the Proper Biblical Canon was given by the Holy Spirit to men and, as you say “proved and reproved” time and again in council, why would you accept a canon that is different?

Just food for thought.

Peace in Christ
James

 

[Lampo]

No, this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument!

What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired.

This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Nicely articulated.

 

[Contarini]

Nicely articulated.

But as I have shown, completely illogical. How do you respond to the fact that the consensus of Biblical scholarship does not hold the Bible to be historically precise in a manner that can support the argument you are making?

Edwin

 

[Lampo]

But this approach makes no sense, because scholars who approach the Bible in this way do not conclude that Jesus instituted an infallible Church.

All scholars? I was explaining how the Catholic Church approaches the Bible.

 

[Lampo]

Contrary to the OP, you do in fact have to assume inspiration in order to have any reason to ascribe such remarkable accuracy to the Bible.
Edwin

Why is this so? Does this also apply to other historical documents? In order for history to be accurately recorded it must be inspired? I’ve never heard that.

 

[Contarini]

All scholars?

Of course not “all scholars.” But if you are trying to prove Catholicism based on the assumption that the Bible is accurate, you need solid historical proof that the Bible is entirely accurate in the precise ways that support your claims about an “infallible Church.” You don’t have that. Even most Catholic scholars don’t think that Matt. 16, for instance, transcribes the precise words of Jesus.

I was explaining how the Catholic Church approaches the Bible.

You were doing nothing of the sort. You were repeating an argument which Karl Keating adapted from conservative Protestant apologetics of 100 years ago. It’s not even a dominant or mainstream approach within Catholicism, let alone an official one.

And as I have shown, the argument fails. You can’t assume that passages such as Matt. 16 are entirely historically accurate *unless *you first invoke the theological concept of divine inspiration. (Whether or not the divine inspiration of Scripture guarantees that Matthew would never elaborate on the words Jesus spoke is another issue and not relevant here.)

Edwin

 

[Lampo]

****Why not? You are assuming that Jesus will not be present with the Church if it teaches any error at all in its official teaching. This does not seem like a reasonable assumption.

If the Church teaches error, it would be teaching a lie. Who is the father of lies? Satan. I would consider the gates of Hades prevailing at that point, wouldn’t you?

 

[Contarini]

Why is this so? Does this also apply to other historical documents?

Certainly. Do you normally assume that any text you run across is thoroughly accurate? Historians don’t. A major part of being a historian is evaluating the evidence.

In order for history to be accurately recorded it must be inspired? I’ve never heard that.

Of course that’s not what I said at all. The question is how we know that a text is accurate. We check it against other evidence. In the case of Matt. 16 there is no other witness saying that Jesus told Peter “upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail,” although Luke does record a somewhat similar promise to Peter in a completely different context (Luke 22). The parallel version in Mark, which most people think is earlier than Matthew and was a source used by Matthew, does not have these words. So what evidence we have points toward Matthew having inserted the words. Is it certain? No, of course not. Matthew might have some other source we don’t know about. He might actually have written his Gospel before Mark–this is a minority position among scholars but not impossible–which would mean that Mark was condensing the original account rather than Matthew expanding it. It’s even conceivable, I suppose, that Matthew might be an eye-witness who took Mark’s Gospel and added to it based on his own recollections (though that would be pretty weird–why not just write his own version from the start?). But none of these are the most likely options. The most likely possibility, and the one that historians would normally go with in a case like this, is that Matthew elaborated on the original account in order to make a point.

To short-circuit all of this analysis, you need to assume divine inspiration from the start (and you also need to have a doctrine of divine inspiration that excludes the kind of editorial elaborations most scholars ascribe to Matthew in this case). But your argument doesn’t let you do this. Therefore your argument fails. If you don’t assume divine inspiration, the only honest approach is to treat the text as you would any other ancient document: which means that the balance of probability is in favor of the words "you are Peter, and on this rock. . . " being Matthew’s addition rather than having been spoken by Jesus.

I should note that ancient historians often put speeches in people’s mouths. This is more relevant in Luke than in Matthew, in my opinion, because Luke is a more classical writer in style and shows a lot more signs of being guided by the norms of Greek historical writing. But it’s at least somewhat relevant here, as another nail in the coffin of your assumption that Jesus must have said the words ascribed to Him in Matthew 16.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If the Church teaches error, it would be teaching a lie.

Nonsense. I make mistakes all the time and they aren’t lies. A lie is a deliberate falsehood. You’re playing games with language.

Who is the father of lies? Satan. I would consider the gates of Hades prevailing at that point, wouldn’t you?

Not at all. And no reasonable person would. You’re positing a completely bizarre definition of the “gates of hell prevailing” because that’s what you need to make your propagandistic point.

As a matter of fact we know for certain that the Papacy did use forged documents to support some of its claims in the Middle Ages. Whether any Pope ever knew that the documents were forged is questionable (I am quite willing to give the Popes the benefit of the doubt). But obviously a forgery was involved at some point and on some level, and the Holy Spirit did not see fit to clear up the error until the Renaissance. Of course you will assume based on your dogmatic presuppositions that this is completely irrelevant because a formal definition of dogma was involved. But this is not how anyone not already committed to your presuppositions would see the matter.

Edwin