Is infallible knowledge of the Canon possible

  • Thread starter Thread starter SolaScriptura
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Randy_Carson said:
Some controversialists claim a need for an infallible interpreter for an infallible Bible therefore requires an infallible student. This shows a serious misunderstanding of the concept of infallibility. The human mind is designed to be able to discern the truth and it usually does. It is not necessary for it to be infallible to do so. The method of trial and error is sufficient. Unfortunately, there are limits to the ability of the human mind to learn the truth. In particular, the mind is strongly influenced by prejudices and presuppositions that may make some conclusions unacceptable. It is also possible to draw incorrect conclusions from fallacious use of the reasoning faculty. One may also draw improper conclusions from partial data. Furthermore, the mind may have problems comprehending those matters the content of which is beyond our immediate experience. Nevertheless, with proper guidance, preparation, and a good source of correct comprehensive information, the human mind is capable of coming to true knowledge without needing to be formally infallible itself.
Click to expand...
He is making my argument against all of you. Infallibility is not needed to arrive at truth. This is why I say the church did not need to be infallible to get the canon right. Especially when you consider God is working through providence to achieve the results.
 
Sola-

I know you hate long posts, but if you have not done so, I think it would be good to read the article excerpt I posted above by Dr. Art Sippo.

He address this issue of the “fallible student” quite thoroughly.

Also, as you have accepted that the original Apostles were infallible, all that is left to help you across the Tiber is to explain Apostolic Succession to you.

When do we begin?
 
I have a question in all sincerity. I’ve heard this numerous times and never thought anything about it till recently. It has been argued many times that Jesus will lead the Church into all the truth, yet the only thing I ever read is that the Church is infallible only in matters of faith and morals. Aren’t there things other than faith and morals and, if so why are they not covered under the umbrella of “all truth”? Just curious
 
SolaScriptura said:
He is making my argument against all of you. Infallibility is not needed to arrive at truth. This is why I say the church did not need to be infallible to get the canon right. Especially when you consider God is working through providence to achieve the results.
Click to expand...
Infallibility means that one is incapable of error.

The Church or the Pope may not arrive at a specific truth (s/he can remain silent) but neither can teach error by virtue of infallibility.

The Church was led by the Holy Spirit to correctly identify the entire canon (a truth) without error. In other words, no books were included in error and no books were omitted in error.

The canon was infallibly declared.

You, also, can know a truth but you do not know it infallibly because although you did get the right answer, you could have gotten the wrong answer.

The Church and the Pope cannot get the wrong answer.

This is the difference.
 
SolaScriptura said:
Inerrant is the correct word, not infallibly.

My trust is ultimately in God guiding the church. I don’t have a problem with that.

I don’t believe God would allow his church to fall en masse into heresy either. I just don’t see any evidence from Scripture or early church history that any one thought infallibility was necessary for this to take place.
Click to expand...
Before the Canon came along, the Church was the sole source of the Faith…fact. If people turned to scripture alone, they’d have a big problem of knowing what scriptures to turn to since no one knew what for sure belonged in the Canon, or even that a Canon was necessary. By definition, if the Church was the only source of divine information, it had to be infallible; even you agree that God wouldn’t leave the Church without a means of infallibility–you just claim that scripture alone is infallible. So at least until the Canon came along, either the Church was as infallible as the Apostles and as you say the Bible now is, or else the true Faith may well have been lost in that 300+ years time span. If that’s how fragile the truth was, then placing faith in the Bible is completely unwarranted as well, since by the time it was Canonized, the Faith in which it was Canonized may have been false. So, at least until that time, the Church had to be infallible…simply had to be, or else you may as well toss a coin to give you any reason as to whether or not to trust the Bible; Faith’s not that random a hit-and-miss thing.

That being said and logically backed up (because, again, there had to be some infallible source to turn to before the Canon, as even you and all Protestants assert the importance of some infallible source within Christianity), if the Church was infallible all those years, and then the Canon came along and rendered the Church’s infallibility obselete (which is what the more sensible Protestants, who at least know that the Church had to be infallible at one time, assert), why wouldn’t the Canon or the Church or somebody point out the important fact that the infallible Church, that was once the sole source of the Faith, was no longer infallibly trustworthy and might lead the people astray? That’s too important to not mention! That’s a monumental change that would mutate the very nature of the Christian Faith; surely, God would’ve explicitly made known, in bold plain language, that “The Church can no longer be trusted in the same way you have trusted Her for over 300 years; get used to this new way of thinking or risk being misled!” There is no such message anywhere, scriptural or otherwise…I’d say God left out something pretty important, if what you assert is true.

And please, there’s no need to say that the Church was never infallible; if not, then Christianity may as well have fallen apart in the first 300 years just as much as it would today without the Bible if Scripture was the Sole infallible source of Faith. If you say that the Church didn’t have to be infallible back then, then the Bible need not be infallible now, since apparently infallibility, to you, isn’t important to Christianity…in which case, if your very Faith doesn’t make you believe that something must be infallibe, you have absolutely no reason to stand for anything. “Is adultery wrong?” “Well, I don’t know, the Bible kinda says so, but it could be wrong, because it’s not infallible…so maybe a Christian can commit all the adultery he wants to!!! I don’t recommend it, but I can’t say for sure it’s wrong!” That’s what a Protestant’s reply would sound like if he/she thought nothing, not even the Bible, was infallible.
However, are you saying we are both in the same boat with assurance of our faith? If so, you have conceded everything I have argued.
Click to expand...

  1. *]The Catholic is in no better position than the Protestant in reference to the canon. Both believe the canon is correct based on faith.
Click to expand...

  1. *]If a Catholic claims they have infallible knowledge of the books of the canon, then they are in a worse position, because this argument is fallacious.
    Click to expand...
    I made a post earlier…I think it was #82…I’m not certain, but it’s in that area. You never reflected on it, and I don’t believe that you will. You’ve ignored it several times since then. But believe me, it addresses this fallacious conclusion to which you have come. Your very premise avoids the whole issue, and that post addresse how very well.
 
KindredSoul said:
I made a post earlier…I think it was #82…I’m not certain, but it’s in that area. You never reflected on it, and I don’t believe that you will. You’ve ignored it several times since then. But believe me, it addresses this fallacious conclusion to which you have come. Your very premise avoids the whole issue, and that post addresse how very well.
Click to expand...
Every internet wannabe Catholic apologist thinks he/she is unanswerable. I’ve been challenged with this kind of statement a number of times on this board and never has the post lived up to the hype. I’m really tired of the same ole arguments re-packaged as if it is something new. Everybody rummaging through their most used apologetic websites and books to find an answer that will defeat the confused SolaScriptura!! Alas, Sola still stands, because God’s word will always stand. My heart and soul may fail, but God’s truth abided still. On this earth there is no equal.
 
SolaScriptura said:
Everybody rummaging through their most used apologetic websites and books to find an answer that will defeat the confused SolaScriptura!! Alas, Sola still stands, because God’s word will always stand.
Click to expand...
So here I am, a confused atheist. Why should I believe you when you say that the Bible is God’s word?
 
SolaScriptura said:
Every internet wannabe Catholic apologist thinks he/she is unanswerable.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Not only do I not give myself that much credit at all, I don’t give you that much credit either. Even if I were so sure of myself, I can imagine more challenging Protestants, with stronger and more tangible arguments, against whom to test my apologetics…so don’t go flattering either of us, okay?

Believe it or not, I’m sure you can come up with an answer to my post (you always manage something, even if just a repetition), I’m just curious as to what, since that’s an issue I personally haven’t seen you respond to; you’ve beaten all around that bush very closely and never quite addressed it. It’s only natural of me to be curious.
Everybody rummaging through their most used apologetic websites and books to find an answer that will defeat the confused SolaScriptura!!
Click to expand...
Now who’s flattering himself? Catholics hardly find you enough of a theological threat to care about “defeating” you…God’s Truth doesn’t need us to counter the arguments of a mere anonymous internet novelty, who will likely endanger not a single Catholic’s God given Faith, rest assured.

Believe it or not, did you ever think that if you ask a question, as you have by starting this thread, we may just think it sensible for you to actually consider the answers, and, if we actually take the time to answer and you deem the answer unworthy, that you tell us what’s wrong with the answer instead of just ignoring it (particularly after being asked to address it several times)? That and, again, it’s only natural to be curious as to how such an aggressive, daring Sola Scripturist such as yourself thinks to defend his self-proclaimed invulnerable stance.
God’s word will always stand. My heart and soul may fail, but God’s truth abided still. On this earth there is no equal.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly how we Catholics feel, which is exactly why we’re not nearly as threatened by your Sola Scriptura arguments as you believe us to be (just because we try to give you the honest answer you asked for, no less!)

Indeed, God’s word, all of it and not just the written scripture portion of it, will stand…regardless of who tries to come along and say only the written portion of it counts.
 
porthos11 said:
Assume I don’t and that I don’t believe in God. Surely you will encounter such people. Why should I believe you when you say the Bible is God’s Word?
Click to expand...
You assume I don’t believe in God and you had to prove to me your church is the church of Christ. You will have your answer 😉
 
KindredSoul said:
Here’s the difference: Even if your faith in the Bible alone were correct beyond the shadow of a doubt, you’d have no means to resolve differences when people disagree as to what that very Bible says even about matters they feel to be matters of life and death. Furthermore, the Bible never defines what does and doesn’t belong in the Canon. Therefore, by virtue of your faith, even if you came to it infallibly, you’re left without a means to resolve differences and to know what belongs in the Bible, since even the source that you have faith to be infallible doesn’t define it.
Click to expand...
KindredSoul,

I tried to pull out the paragraph that was most germaine to the issue. A good portion of your post was moving to a related but different issue as we see in this paragraph( how do you settle disputes about what the bible says ). Beyond that you are saying the same things I have already answered. For example this:

Furthermore, the Bible never defines what does and doesn’t belong in the Canon.

First, Duh!! Neither does your rule of faith define what are the ex Cathedra statements, but that doesn’t slow you down. Neither Scripture or early tradition teaches every Bishop of Rome will be infallible, but that doesn’t slow you down either.

Second, you assume that a infallible source is needed to resolve all differences, but that is fallacious. Not everyone is happy with the resolution, just as not everyone has been happy with the resolutions made by Catholicism( can you say Old Catholic Church), but they are made none the less.

Finally, in the end it doesn’t make much difference if you say I believe Rome is infallible therefore,I will trust her decision on the canon and my saying, I believe the infallible God is working with his fallible church to guide her decision on the canon.
 
SolaScriptura said:
You assume I don’t believe in God and you had to prove to me your church is the church of Christ. You will have your answer 😉
Click to expand...
So you refuse to answer.

I as a Catholic will start with the historical fact of Jesus’ resurrection. Of course that’s an uphill battle but can be shown without resorting to infallibility. Of course, it’s an uphill battle, but not impossible. Everything rises and falls on the resurrection, because it is this event that lends credibility to his words and promises.

Then I show that the Church he founded is the same church that exists today that defined the canon. Again, just from history, no claim of infallibility. Difficult, but not impossible.

Your turn. Why should an atheist accept your assertion that the Bible is inspired of God in those 66 books and no more?
 
porthos11 said:
So you refuse to answer.
Click to expand...
No, I’m just getting tired of answering every thing that comes to the imagination of someone.
porthos11 said:
I as a Catholic will start with the historical fact of Jesus’ resurrection. Of course that’s an uphill battle but can be shown without resorting to infallibility. Of course, it’s an uphill battle, but not impossible. Everything rises and falls on the resurrection, because it is this event that lends credibility to his words and promises.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I would do the same thing.
porthos11 said:
Then I show that the Church he founded is the same church that exists today that defined the canon. Again, just from history, no claim of infallibility. Difficult, but not impossible.
Click to expand...
Yeah, very, very, very difficult 🙂 I would make that point that if Jesus is God and He has revealed Himself to His creation then in naturally follows that He would guide them in recognizing this revelation. Otherwise, why would He go to the trouble to reveal Himself? This was the process that took place with the early church.
Your turn. Why should an atheist accept your assertion that the Bible is inspired of God in those 66 books and no more?
Click to expand...
My point in forcing you to lay out your cards first was to show you that here is no substantial difference between the two. We both have to reason from history. The only difference is that at some point you tried smuggle in an infallible church. However, neither the Scriptures or early church history is on your side if the atheist is familiar with the issues, so my position is more reasonable.
 
SolaScriptura said:
My point in forcing you to lay out your cards first was to show you that here is no substantial difference between the two. We both have to reason from history. The only difference is that at some point you tried smuggle in an infallible church. However, neither the Scriptures or early church history is on your side if the atheist is familiar with the issues, so my position is more reasonable.
Click to expand...
Ok so let’s for the sake of this discussion go along with you and concede defeat re the Church and put it out of the way. That leaves us the fact you have now convinced me that Jesus is God.

Now the atheist will want to know which books speak the truth of Jesus. Therefore, I need to know which books are those inspired of God. You say that God himself will guide you. Ok. However, the Mormons make the exact same claim of their book of Mormon; they know because God guides them directly. I won’t argue with the Catholics because they make this ridiculous claim that their Church knows better. Since you’ve already convinced me that Catholicism is false, I’m left with the direct guidance from God.

So now I have you and the Mormons claiming that Jesus is God and that he guides you both into the truth of the Scriptures.

How do I know that you’re speaking the truth and that the Mormon position is false?
 
porthos11 said:
Ok so let’s for the sake of this discussion go along with you and concede defeat re the Church and put it out of the way. That leaves us the fact you have now convinced me that Jesus is God.

Now the atheist will want to know which books speak the truth of Jesus. Therefore, I need to know which books are those inspired of God. You say that God himself will guide you. Ok. However, the Mormons make the exact same claim of their book of Mormon; they know because God guides them directly. I won’t argue with the Catholics because they make this ridiculous claim that their Church knows better. Since you’ve already convinced me that Catholicism is false, I’m left with the direct guidance from God.
Click to expand...
I don’t have the time or desire to get into a apologetic of Christianity over Mormonism, but the approach is the same no matter who we are talking about. Remember, I never said my belief in the canon was based on a feeling alone. I said it was based on the historical evidence and trust in the God of this evidence. So I would argue from Scripture and history why Mormonism is false. The same way you would argue against a Mormon and the same way I argue against you.
porthos11 said:
So now I have you and the Mormons claiming that Jesus is God and that he guides you both into the truth of the Scriptures.
How do I know that you’re speaking the truth and that the Mormon position is false?
Click to expand...
We look at the evidences each side uses and the onsistency of each side professed beliefs. There is no magic in any of this and we are all in the same boat. Whether Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Mormon, or JWs. You have to use historical evidences and reason to convince minds. Saying my infallible church says so, is no different than saying my Prophet says so, or my anointed Organization says so( i.e. JW ), or the Scripture says so. We all have to give cogent reasons for our infallible sources.

I say all of this, but I do realize that in the end all the best reasons and evidence will not change minds. People will hold on to their beliefs systems even in the face of the most overwhelming reasons. It is only God in the end that can change hearts and minds. I just try to be faithful in being part of the pillar and foundation of the truth as revealed in his Holy Word.
 
Has anyone else noticed that in order to disprove the authority of the magisterium Sola has basically had to prove that there is no reason for us to believe in any of this at all?

I just find it interesting that to defeat Catholicism one must try to dismantle the reasons for being Christian at all. Anyone else getting that?
 
SolaScriptura said:
No, I’m just getting tired of answering every thing that comes to the imagination of someone.
Click to expand...
Well I imagine you would be and if you came to rest here you came to the wrong place. The CC teaches two types of infallability a)Inspired - writers of the books in the bible 2)Revelation - safeguarding/interpretation of God’s word. Inspired is no longer valid with the passing of the last writer. No Pope or ECF is inspired writing … even today. That leaves Revelation … safeguarding and interpretation. The safeguarding is the determination of the Canon. This is how we use the term infallability in the determination of the Canon.

Now you still ask how … it is a grace given by God to protect His Church … nothing more or less. It cannot work any other way.

The heading of your post is “Re: Is infallible knowledge of the Canon possible …”. People have written and said yes it is possible and beyond possible it is the truth. You only asked if it were possible. Your version is also possible so then one must choose. The Catholic Church, which teaches as dogma the concept of infallibility, or a church that doesn’t. Clearly this is an issue beyond just infallability as 1/2 of the world’s Christians are Catholic and the other half Protestant.

I think the removal of the 6 books during the Reformation only enhances our argument not yours. From the Protestant point of view to remove books has to mean the original was not yet set perfectly. How else could it change? You have to justify the correctness of what happened during the Reformation. Under this reasoning the determination of the Canon cannot be infalliable as it has changed …hence your position. But what mystical event gave anyone that authority or power?

Hypothetical (sort of as it did happen once) … If someone learned, knowledgable and had creditibilty came along today and this person said he had found 2 books to be included or 1 book to be removed. This person wrote and published reasoned tracts on the whys and hows etc. and he did have an updated version published. Where would that book stand under your reasoning. This person felt inspired by God to do this … he says it is not of his own doing but God’s will.

There will be people convinced that this new book is truth.

Something or someone is wrong … has to be. That throws the whole issue up in the air, not for us, but for you. The issue is settled for us once and for all, we know that the Canon cannot change. No one can do it … not even the Pope with his mysterious infallability … remember the criteria for its use. How do you choose, because you must choose?
 
rtconstant said:
Has anyone else noticed that in order to disprove the authority of the magisterium Sola has basically had to prove that there is no reason for us to believe in any of this at all?
Click to expand...
No one probably noticed because that is not what is taking place. I’ve only shown there is no reason to believe in an infallible church( not to even mentioned your concept of an infallible magisteruim), but there is someone infallible that we need to believe in and that is God. God is infallible so His word is infallible. The only infallible word of God we have in our position is in the Holy, Inerrant, and Infallible( contrary to some Catholics) Scriptures. And the Scriptures point us to the God of the Scriptures who is revealed in His glorious Son.
I just find it interesting that to defeat Catholicism one must try to dismantle the reasons for being Christian at all. Anyone else getting that?
Click to expand...
I hope not, and I don’t see how you got that. It says more about your belief than mines. Without Catholicism’s grandiose claims you can envision no Christianity, however for me without Christ there is no Christianity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top