Is infallible knowledge of the Canon possible

[SolaScriptura]

I am not infallible in my knowledge of trigonometry, but I know for sure that Sin theta = o/h in a right-angled triangle. How do I know this? Through the witness of others. I could give a very good proof for it, but does this make me infallible? Of course not.

Exactly, I agree, but now you have to convince your other Catholics of this because they think they have infallible knowledge of these facts.

Sola is trying to tell us that because we are not infallible (and this is true), therefore we could be wrong when we believe in an infallible Church. Yes we could be wrong, but I suspect that many of the Catholics here would think that possibility to be as likely as the possibility that Sin theta =/= o/h. It would be a denial of a promise of Jesus, as someone else has pointed out.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner ladies and gentlemen. We are in exactly the same boat, because I also believe because of the promises of God we have the correct canon and infallibility is not need for this to take place.

Sola - can we arrive at a knowledge of anything without being infallible in that topic? It seems to me that you would have to say “no” in answer to this question, for your argument to hold any water.

Of course not. I’m arguing exactly the opposite against the Catholics. They are the ones who try to argue that without infallible knowledge we cannot know for sure if the canon is right. I believe I can just as much faith in the canon as I do in God’s existence and infallibility is not needed for each.

 

[porthos11]

We have just shown that Jesus’ claims to be God and his Resurrection are true, just by looking at the Bible as plain history. I’m certain you agree.

1. Now if Jesus was indeed God, we must take his claims seriously. These are some of the things he said:
   a. He would build his Church;
   b. The gates of Hell would not prevail against it;
   c. It would have the power to bind and loose (Matt 18:18, the collegiate authority, not Matt 16:19). This is the key to the Church’s teaching infallibility.

Now: if the Church collapsed during Constantine’s time as claimed by fundamentalists, then (b) is false, and this detracts from Jesus’ promise, and therefore his credibility. But we know that Jesus’ words are true from step 2, so (b) cannot be false.

Therefore, by c. AD 397, the same Church Jesus founded was still in existence. In that year, the Church first codified the canon of Scripture in Council (Councils of Rome, Hippo, Carthage). It is by this authority granted by Jesus that the Church identified these books as the inspired ones.

So in short, our steps are these:

Bible as accurate (not inspired) manuscripts;
Bible as accurate history;
Jesus’ Resurrection as history;
Jesus as God;
Jesus words as true;
Jesus founding a Church;
Church was given authority;
Church uses authority to determine inspiration.

To this is not circular, because we do not start with inspiration of Scripture to prove the Church; rather we start with history to prove the Church, then the Church to prove the canon.

 

[Atreyu]

Exactly, I agree, but now you have to convince your other Catholics of this because they think they have infallible knowledge of these facts.

Well the way I understood the Catholic argument, is that there is no real reason for Protestants to accept the canon they generally accept. Protestants don’t even claim infallibility in knowing what the true canon is. That’s ok. But my major problem with this reasoning, is that Protestants will then go on to say that 2 Maccabees is not inspired. That is not ok. The historical witness to the inspiration of 2 Maccabees is in my opinion, overwhelming. So in effect, Protestants are taking on faith something completely against the entire historical Church. As a result, their doctrine suffers.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner ladies and gentlemen. We are in exactly the same boat, because I also believe because of the promises of God we have the correct canon and infallibility is not need for this to take place.

So when did God promise to deliver you the correct canon?

Of course not. I’m arguing exactly the opposite against the Catholics. They are the ones who try to argue that without infallible knowledge we cannot know for sure if the canon is right. I believe I can just as much faith in the canon as I do in God’s existence and infallibility is not needed for each.

My argument is that we can know for sure that Jesus made certain promises to the apostles and their successors. One of these promises is the gift of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. Do I know this infallibly myself? No. But the overwhelming witness is in favour of this position being correct. I might be wrong, but the chance of this is akin to the small chance that God Himself does not exist.

I do not need to be infallible to know a truth, I simply need enough witness to that truth. Where’s your witness for your canon?

 

[YADA]

Of course not. I’m arguing exactly the opposite against the Catholics. They are the ones who try to argue that without infallible knowledge we cannot know for sure if the canon is right. I believe I can just as much faith in the canon as I do in God’s existence and infallibility is not needed for each.

The problem with your arguement is that you have faith in the canon solely based upon God’s existance. You have a Canon [the Bible] because a body of believers compiled it for you. When you were introduced to the Holy Scriptures it was presented as God’s Word. The words used may have been “Inerrant, Infallable, the Word of God, Inspired” or a host of other decriptive words that put ‘the Bible’ in a specific context. It is also very probably the means by which you were introduced to the very concept of God’s existence [or a major soure of that belief] This is true whether you were first introduced to god in Sunday school as a pre-schooler or as an adult.

It is also true that this “Good Book” was presnted to you as an authoritative voice for God’s Word. This you accepted with faith.

Now you can say that for the Catholic, the most authoritative introduction for God is the Church. It is the Church that introduces God to the believer, whether in pre-school or as an adult. The Church also introduces the beleiver to the holy Scriptures [the Bible, the Good News, the Good Book, etc]. The catolic accepts the teaching of the Church with faith.

And it is the Church who first declared the scriptures to be ‘inspired’, ‘inerrant in respect to faith and morals’, the word of God, etc. The Church determined the 27 books of the New Testament, used the Septuagint Canon of teh Hebrew Texts in worship, compiled and combined the two [Old & New] canons. The Church preserved, copied, translated and handed on this Holy Book. History gives witness to this fact.

The Catholic knows upon what [the Church] his faith in scripture is based. The Protestant places his faith in scripture [alone] as if that belief is an individually determined fact [unigue to that Christian] from ‘inspiration’ of the Holy Spirit. Tthat this [God sent] inspiration comes with no history, as if the Bible was sent from a cloud and the Protestant Reformers never existed and all knowledge of God came without any predisposed theology or doctrine.

An honest rendering ofyour position might be that your faith community [be it Methodist, non-denominational or other] teaches that scripture is authoritative and each individual believer can interpret it to their own ‘truth’, ‘belief’ and ‘faith’

 

[Subrosa]

Hi there SolaScriptura -
In order to understand the precept of infallability one must understand the concept of the Sacramental Principle. A Sacrament is a sign of Christ’s presence. What I am about
to show you establishes that Christ is among the Church and the Church is a sign of His presence.

Now, I am not speaking strictly of the Sacraments of the Church, but of other teachings firmly established in the Bible. These things Jesus taught before the New Testament
writings were put to any scroll or papyrus.

Paul teaches that the Church is the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12:12-30) 1 Corinthians 12:27 points out specifically that “Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it.”

Jesus Himself states in Matthew 18:20 that “For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.” (At this point you should think “Church Council”)

A very important indicator is Acts 9:4. While Saul (Paul) was persecuting Christians Jesus appeared to him and said “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”

Jesus used the word “me” to describe the persecution of His followers. Remember, Paul points out that Christians are the body of Christ. In persecuting Christians, not just the Apostles, Jesus Himself was persecuted.

Jesus had previously promised to remain with the church. Specifically He said in Matthew 28:20 “And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

Now let me ask you a question - How could Jesus accomplish this Promise if He intended it for only the Apostles? Remember, He is incapable of lying.

Paul made the answer plain in his writings. The CHURCH is the Body of Christ. In Colossians 1:18 Paul explicitly states “He is the head of the body, THE CHURCH.”

Paul restates this in Ephesians 20:19-10 adding that the Church has a firm foundation…“you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of
God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone.”

Paul also states explicitly in 1 Timothy 3:15 “…you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is THE CHURCH of the living God, the PILLAR and FOUNDATION of
TRUTH.”

Jesus also said that He would not do this on His own. In the Gospel of John 14:16-17 He promises even more help. “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be with you ALWAYS, the Spirit of Truth…” And in verse 26 of the same chapter He promises again “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name - He will teach you everything snd remind you of everything I have told you.”

The reason that the Church is infallable is because Christ is infallable and the Spirit is infallable. The CHURCH is the Body of Christ with Jesus as it’s head, therefore it cannot err. It is infallable.

By the way, this also points to the fact that Sola Scriptura is false. It is the Church of the Apostles that is the Foundation and Pillar of Truth. Notice that Jesus promised to send a new Advocate to teach and remind. He did not promise to write any books.

Subrosa

 

[Randy_Carson]

Whose position of the canon is the most consistent? I would argue that my position is and the Catholic position is illogical. I believe we as fallible humans cannot have infallible knowledge of anything unless we are inspired of God. We have faith and trust in God’s promises, but faith is not based on infallible knowledge.

Catholics often claim Protestants need an infallible church so we can have infallible knowledge of the canon. But there is a big problem. How can fallible Catholics relying on their own fallible knowledge to sift through all the competing claims by churches. Sift through the Scriptures and sift through all the competing historical voices have infallible knowledge of anything? They would need to be individual infallible in order to guarantee any thing they believe is infallible. So Catholics, how do you move from fallibility to infallible knowledge of things such as the canon?

I have misquoted you previously, so I do not want to do so again.

1. Did you not say elsewhere that the doctrine of sola scriptura is an infallible doctrine?
2. Are you suggesting that you know sola scriptura is true by inspiration from God?
3. Don’t Mormons claim the same thing?
4. Isn’t inspiration from God itself extra-biblical? So, you’re relying on something outside the Bible to tell you that the Bible Alone is sufficient?

Please explain.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It seems like you have just joined me in my boat.

This is a telling comment.

Sola, you really are in your own little boat, all by yourself, with your scriptures that you now realize you can’t really interpret or understand because you are fallible. Further, these same scriptures promised the Holy Spirit to the Church, but there is no verse promising an infallible understanding of the Bible to you personally. Therefore, you are adrift, and the wind and waves are rising and clouds are rolling in.

“All the little man-built crafts on the world’s sea, such as Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Calvinism, Methodism, Photianism * and the so-called national churches may perish - they have no guarantee of permanence against the storm of human sin and error - but the ship that carries Christ, the barque of Peter, cannot sink; it will plough its way through the waves until eternity, and, having crossed the lake of human affairs, it will cast anchor in the harbour of God.”

Second Paragraph from a Sermon
By Very Rev.Fr J.P. Arendzen of the Catholic Missionary Society*

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner ladies and gentlemen. We are in exactly the same boat, because I also believe because of the promises of God we have the correct canon and infallibility is not need for this to take place.

No, you are not in the same boat with us.

Porthos’ posts are correct, and I know you hate long replies but his layout is worthy of reading. Someone else gave you the link to an article called Proving Inspiration. Really, Sola, less time typing and more time reading would serve you well at this point.

You see, it’s not about the destination - we both arrive at the same conclusion that the scriptures are inspired - but how we travelled to the destination that matters.

You come to the conclusion that the Bible is inspired. Great. We agree. But we come to the conclusion that the Bible is inspired by first establishing that an infallible Church determines that the Bible is inspired. Thus, unlike your empty dusty suitcase, we arrive with the riches of the Church of Christ.

It makes all the difference in the world.

Read Porthos’ posts!

 

[alexaustralia]

Here we go again. More questions but no one answers the questions.

I live in Australia so generally the only time I have to write in these forums is at lunch time although now it is 10pm (start work at 7:30am so gotta go to bed soon). So I generally can only give 2cents worth due to time restrictions and time zone differences.

Depends if he was taking the test ex cathedra it would be a hundred, but if it was just a personal thing he could fail.

Actually even ex cathedra his minimum score would be zero. Infallibility prevents the Pope from giving wrong answers it does not allow him to be infused with supernatural knowledge to give the right ones. So in this hypotetical case the Holy Spirit, through the gift of infallibility, would prevent the Pope from writting any answers because the Spirit knows that he will answer them incorrectly (i.e. his paper would be blank). The only way the Holy Spirit would allow the Pope to answer is if he knows that through natural means (study and hard work plus normal God given grace like the one you and I receive during examinations) the Pope will answer correctly. Basically infallibilty only stops error it does not allow at the push of a button for the Pope full access to all the knowledge he desires.

Why don’t you answer my real question? How do you go from fallible to infallibility about the canon?

Same reasons as above (first part) plus I think others have already done so.

Well good night every one and God bless

Alex

 

[runandsew]

The Acts council had the inspired Apostles. There were no inspired men in the other councils. As a matter of fact your church affirms that Hippo and Carthage were not infallible.

Act 15:27 - 29
So we are sending Judas and Silas who will also convey this same message by word of mouth: ‘It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’"

We see here that it was the holy Spirit that helped the church come to a decision in this council. And I don’t believe that this gift given to the church by Jesus ended with the death of the last Apostle because nowhere in the bible does it say that it will. In fact what we see is the Apostles passing on their authority.
Why would the apostles have filled Judas’s position if their authority was going to end with the death of the last apostle?

I think that you are mixing up the terms inspired and infallible.
inspired is God breathed, this is what happened when Peter wrote his letters in the bible. Infallible is not teaching error in faith or morals.
At the council they were infallible, they were not teaching error.
Not everything that Peter said was inspired, or else Jesus would not have had to rebuke him with the “get behind me satan” comment.
But I would think that Peter was inspired when he spoke at Pentecost.
Again inspired means that something is God breathed, like God as the principle author of scripture, and infallible means that someone is not teaching error in cases of faith or morals. Both items are from God, but inspiration is more direct than infallibility is, The holy Spirit was given to lead the Apostles in all truth, and this is what makes them infallible, but it doesn’t put words in their mouth.
And this gift was not to end with the Apostles, they were able to pass it on to their sucessors, Jesus promised to be with them and the Church until the end of time. And that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church, how is this to be acomplished?
By the advocate given to the church.
In Greek " parakletos"
“the Holy Spirit, and which may be translated Comforter, Advocate, or Helper”
All these meanings can be the roles the holy Spirit provides us.

An yes in reply to your original question, the holy spirit could give the early councils an infallible knowledge of the canon.

also I am sorry for my rude comments in my previous post.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I can’t reply to every comment, so I will start to be selective. I will try to respond to those who actually give an answer to the question.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Your question is a fair one. It’s true that the canon of the Bible is, for Catholics in place by the authority of the Church. We believe that by the charism of infallibility promised by Christ, the Church had the authority to determine that these (72) books in our canon are inspired. Because this is a matter of faith, the Church indeed had to claim infallibility here.
Before continuing, let us make it clear that the individual Catholic does not claim infallibility for himself. That lies with the Church’s teaching authority.

Yes, I agree and that is the main issue. All the individual’s claim of infallible knowledge of some things because they have an infallible church is fallacious.

Ok, now we Catholics cannot use Scripture to prove the authority of the Church, then use the authority of the Church to prove the canon. That would be circular reasoning, and is a fallacy. Perhaps it will help for us to break down how we reason it.

1. We use Scripture. BUT, we do not assume that Scripture is inspired. We don’t even need to know whether what’s said is true. For now, we only need to determine whether what we have are accurate copies of the original texts.

• We know this because of centuries of critical studies. We can be sure of the accuracy of other ancient literature, like Caesar, or Virgil, or Plato, and our Biblical manuscripts date back even closer to the originals. Textual criticism has determined that our texts are rather accurate. Now, Protestants accept this premise, so we have no problem here.

Yes, but right out of the gate you are making a fallible choice based on history. You could be wrong. I don’t believe you are, but it is possible.

1. Then we treat Scripture, specifically, the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, as mere history (again, not yet inspired). In other words, now that we know the texts are accurate, we must now see whether they are historically correct. Since we’re treating the Gospels as mere history, we can compare them alongside other historical and secular works. Criticism tells us that the Gospels, especially that of Luke and Matthew were specifically written for historical purposes, and is confirmed by other non-biblical writers of the ancient world.

• But the most important witness is that the ancient Christian martyrs shed their blood rather than give up their witness to Christ. Their witness included all that Jesus did and said in the Gospels (remember, just historical for now). Including all his outlandish claims to be God and strange deeds that attest to this claim. Given that truth, there are two options: he was a madman, or he was exactly who he was: God

But the witness of the martyrs was of the Christ who rose from the dead, and was worshipped as God. The Gospels attest to the Resurrection, and Paul identifies it as the central point of our faith. The martyrs died for this belief, and no one dies for a hoax such as this (remember, that the martyrdom dates back to apostolic times, and these people claimed to WITNESS, not merely believe, the Resurrection). Why would they die for a known madman? It’s by this we know that Jesus was who he claimed to be: he was God, because he rose from the dead, and that’s a historical fact.

(continued)

Yes, all of this is fine and dandy and I pretty much agree, but once again it is based on fallible reasoning. You could be wrong on a number of issues. However, at this point you are still in the same boat as Protestants.

 

[SolaScriptura]

We have just shown that Jesus’ claims to be God and his Resurrection are true, just by looking at the Bible as plain history. I’m certain you agree.

Yes, I agree with that, but hopefully you would agree this is all based on fallible reasoning so the possibility of error is at every step.

1. Now if Jesus was indeed God, we must take his claims seriously. These are some of the things he said:
   a. He would build his Church;
   b. The gates of Hell would not prevail against it;
   c. It would have the power to bind and loose (Matt 18:18, the collegiate authority, not Matt 16:19). This is the key to the Church’s teaching infallibility.

Of course I don’t agree that binding and loosing means infallibility. The binding and loosing was more in regard to church discipline. It is a non sequitur to go from that to the Bishop of Rome being infallible when speaking ex Cathedra.

Now: if the Church collapsed during Constantine’s time as claimed by fundamentalists, then (b) is false, and this detracts from Jesus’ promise, and therefore his credibility. But we know that Jesus’ words are true from step 2, so (b) cannot be false.

It is not my position the church collapsed so no need to make this argument.

Therefore, by c. AD 397, the same Church Jesus founded was still in existence. In that year, the Church first codified the canon of Scripture in Council (Councils of Rome, Hippo, Carthage). It is by this authority granted by Jesus that the Church identified these books as the inspired ones.

Yeah and no one at these councils thought they were operating under any gift of infallibility. As a matter of fact your church agrees with that. However, that is not even the real issue at hand. The real issue is do the individual Catholic have infallible certainty about the canon.

So in short, our steps are these:

Bible as accurate (not inspired) manuscripts;
Bible as accurate history;
Jesus’ Resurrection as history;
Jesus as God;
Jesus words as true;
Jesus founding a Church;
Church was given authority;
Church uses authority to determine inspiration.

To this is not circular, because we do not start with inspiration of Scripture to prove the Church; rather we start with history to prove the Church, then the Church to prove the canon.

You never answered the question. This thread is not about the inspiration of the Scriptures, but about the individual Catholic having infallible certainty of the canon.

 

[Unitas]

As a sola scripturalist, in your private scripture readings, has the Holy Spirit ever changed your mind on what a particular scripture meant?

If yes, then the Holy Spirit must not have been guiding you the first time you read it.

If no, then you can’t be sure the Holy Spirit is guiding you because it always agrees with you.

Reading comprehension does not equal exegetical infallibility.

 

[exiled]

You never answered the question. This thread is not about the inspiration of the Scriptures, but about the individual Catholic having infallible certainty of the canon.

I’ve read this entire thread, but when I arrived at this last post of yours I find myself confused. Are you asking if individual Catholics have infallible certainty of the interpretation of the canon, or infallible certainty of the contents (books) of the canon?

 

[SolaScriptura]

No, you are not in the same boat with us.

It depends. I’m not in the same boat as those that claim they have infallible certainty, because they are using dubious logic. However, for those Catholics that realize they are not infallible and can never have infallible knowledge of things then we are in the same boat. They are by faith trusting in an church that they believe is infallible to have made infallible decisions. On the other hand, I’m trusting in an infallible God to work through fallible mean to achieve His goals.

Porthos’ posts are correct, and I know you hate long replies but his layout is worthy of reading. Someone else gave you the link to an article called Proving Inspiration. Really, Sola, less time typing and more time reading would serve you well at this point.

Actually I did read Porthos’ posts and it didn’t even answer the question. I’ve seen this argument around many, many years ago. I think I first heard Patrick Madrid use it so you shouldn’t assume what I have I read or what I know.

You see, it’s not about the destination - we both arrive at the same conclusion that the scriptures are inspired - but how we travelled to the destination that matters.

Yes, my faith is in the God who loved me and gave himself up for me and your trust is in the infallible church that most of Christendom denies is really infallible.

You come to the conclusion that the Bible is inspired. Great. We agree. But we come to the conclusion that the Bible is inspired by first establishing that an infallible Church determines that the Bible is inspired. Thus, unlike your empty dusty suitcase, we arrive with the riches of the Church of Christ.

“Empty dusty suitcase”? You don’t even understand the question yet, so I wouldn’t talk about empty dusty suitcases. Furthermore, you come to your conclusion in an illogical fashion so I wouldn’t crow about it to loudly. For example, you establish an infallible church from historically accurate bible. However, I’m amazed that you would arrive at the fact that the church is infallible from reading the bible, but not that the bible is inspired from reading it directly. The bible says over and over that it is inspired, it is God’s word, and it is God speaking. It never directly says anything about the church being infallible. As a matter of fact it talks about error and heresy in the church. So how are you able to read it as accurate history and not believe its inspiration, but read it and find an infallible church?

It makes all the difference in the world.

Yeah, I would agree there is a lot of difference. Your position is illogical. I believe the Scriptures are inspired first and foremost because God has done a work in my heart to believe. Now I’m able to make a case for its inspiration based on historical evidence just as you guys are doing, but there has to be something greater than your own fallible research. For me it is the God.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Whose position of the canon is the most consistent? I would argue that my position is and the Catholic position is illogical. I believe we as fallible humans cannot have infallible knowledge of anything unless we are inspired of God. We have faith and trust in God’s promises, but faith is not based on infallible knowledge.

Catholics often claim Protestants need an infallible church so we can have infallible knowledge of the canon. But there is a big problem. How can fallible Catholics relying on their own fallible knowledge to sift through all the competing claims by churches. Sift through the Scriptures and sift through all the competing historical voices have infallible knowledge of anything? They would need to be individual infallible in order to guarantee any thing they believe is infallible. So Catholics, how do you move from fallibility to infallible knowledge of things such as the canon?

If I read your post correctly you do not believe that any Catholics, Pope or not, are inspired of God. So do you follow the “Catholics are not Christians” theory?

 

[SolaScriptura]

I’ve read this entire thread, but when I arrived at this last post of yours I find myself confused. Are you asking if individual Catholics have infallible certainty of the interpretation of the canon, or infallible certainty of the contents (books) of the canon?

I specified in the first post that I was talking about infallible certainty of the books of the canon. I started this thread because individual Catholic constantly claim Protestant don’t have infallible certainty of the books of the canon, because they don’t believe in an infallible church. Well, my point is that none of us have infallible certainty of the books of the canon. Catholics who believe they do are engaging in fallacious reasoning to believe that.

 

[SolaScriptura]

If I read your post correctly you do not believe that any Catholics, Pope or not, are inspired of God. So do you follow the “Catholics are not Christians” theory?

No you don’t read it correctly. I don’t not believe anyone, Protestant included, is inspired except the Prophets, Apostles, and writers of Scripture.

 

[SolaScriptura]

As a sola scripturalist, in your private scripture readings, has the Holy Spirit ever changed your mind on what a particular scripture meant?

Something changed it, I wouldn’t always say it was the Holy Spirit. Has the Holy Spirit changed your mind before?

If yes, then the Holy Spirit must not have been guiding you the first time you read it.

Maybe or maybe not.

If no, then you can’t be sure the Holy Spirit is guiding you because it always agrees with you.

I never said that was the case. You are swinging at the wind.

Reading comprehension does not equal exegetical infallibility.

Sigh … how you could read my post and believe I’m arguing for some kind of exegetical infallibility is totally beyond me.