Is the Bible complete?

[Genesius]

Okay, everyone…leave BibleAnswer alone and let him have his ‘Bible only’. It’s all he has to hang on to. (-;

Having said that, I’m going to be a bit of a hypocrite and address something BibleAnswer said in an earlier post…

BibleAnswer…you were quoting the end of Revelation and interpreting that as applying to the entire Bible. Now, just bear with me here and try to think logically for a moment. At the time the book of Revelation was written had the NT been canonized yet? In fact, in none of the biblical quotes for your “Verses that prove, the scripture is the only Authority, the Ultimate Authority” can the term ‘Scripture’ refer to the NT (particularly the OT passages you quoted) since the NT canon was not even considered for centuries after the last NT letter was written.

As for me, I used to believe that the Bible was complete because some protestant pastors proclaimed it boldly from their pulpits, quoting that same passage in Revelation. I now believe it is complete because the very Church that gave me that Bible…that same Church that Christ Himself founded and gave the authority to canonize those Scriptures…tells me it is a closed canon.

Having said all that, if you choose to hold your ground and boldly believe that the Bible is the only source of authority for you, I’m sure God’s grace can extend to you and I’m confident that He can use you, as well as many other protestants who believe like you, to further His Kingdom. It’s really okay if you don’t want to come into full communion with the Catholic Church. Just try to focus on Christ and be charitable in all things. Godbless.

 

[jblake]

BibleAnswer;:

You can outright disregard this, or you can voice your understanding for us to comment on. and let the truth prevail.

None of your quotes define, unambiguously, that which is to be treated as canonical. That failure refutes the validity of everything you quoted.

jonathon

 

[PJM]

=Geremia;5463187]What about Dante’s Divine Comedy, for example? Why couldn’t this be divinely inspired like David’s psalms are?

***Assuming that you are serious in your querry [at great risk to my ego] I shall attempt a reply.

The answer lies in a basic understanding of God and God’s relationship with humanity.

"Who is man that God not only Created us, but Created us in His very image, blessing us with minds, intellects and freewills?

Archbishop Fulton Sheen made an astute observation that the bible is not so much about humanity seeking a relationship with their God, as it is God seeking a relationship with humanity." Isaiah 43: 7 & 21; Rom. 14: 11]***

***It is from thhese facts that one can understand why “Dante’s” and other books are certainly not Divinely inspired; at least in the same way, to the same degree as is the bible.

Dante’s work is just that; “Dante’s work,” while the bible is far more; the very word of God, given, protected and insured as truth by the merits of Christ Himself. A highly signifiant point.

John Chapter 15: 16 “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. 17 This I command you, to love one another" ***

Would be impossible but for God’s yet again direct intervention.

*** 2 Tim. 1: “14 guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.” *

John 16: “12 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14* He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. ]

***God has at a great price a vested interest in His Church and our possible Salvation; so great and profound that God chooses to abase Himself to a degree that defies comprehension by becomming our bread, our drink, Spiritual nourishment par execellance, to aid our freely choosing good, choosing right, paying the price of Obedience and avoinf sin.

The bible is an “instruction manual” on “How to get to Heaven” in a sense authored by God.

Is it so strange that God who paid such a great price, would take take what certainly are prudent steps to inform and guide us throughout the ages? Not at all.

“I will send the Holy Spirit and He WILL guide you.” Amen***! **

 

[Genesius]

On another note, concerning the Deuterocanon, I often hear Protestants accusing the Catholic Church of ADDING them to Scripture. Of course, our answer is always that they REMOVED them. My response would be, “Even if the Catholic Church did add them, who would be better qualified to add or take away from the canon than the institution that wrote, canonized, and preserved it for over 2000 years?”

And yet, the debate continues…

 

[erikd]

The Church teaches difinitively that there will be no future addition to Sacred Scripture. This except from Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation) states as much.
The whole document can be seen here.

David:

Your quote says that the inspired writers wrote what God wanted them to write. It does not state that the Council of Ephesus, Council of Rome, or the Council of Carthage made canonical only those that God wanted to be made canonical. The truth is that the Catholic Church has always been open to the possibility of reuniting with our Orthodox Brothers and Sisters, and part of that consideration would be possibly adopting parts of their canon such as Maccabees 3 & 4. The Church has only defined what is canonical, never holding Herself to what is NOT canonical. Just wanted to clarify.

 

[erikd]

The bible is a perfectly finished book.

Bible Answer:

I have several questions for you:

1: You use the NIV, does that mean that you have 66 Books in your Bible?

2: Do you consider yourself Christian or Jewish?

3: If your answer is Christian, then how can you be okay with a Bible that’s 7 Books short? These seven books were and still are considered part of the Bible according to the Christian Church since 382 AD and have been in every Bible even after the reformation (which should be called a defection). Remember, it was the Jews who eliminated the 7 Books not the Christians. Those 7 Books were eliminated precisely to separate Judaism from Christianity. Yet, you still use a Bible that is seven Books short. If in question one you answerd 66, question two you answered Christian, then how do you justify the Perfect Book that is only 90% complete?

 

[jblake]

drforjc;:

Given the silence of nearly 20 centuries I think the chances of a primary authentication are pretty slim.

About a decade ago, a manuscript written by one of Paul’s scribes was found. So there is some hope for an original manuscript by Paul, or dictated to one of his scribes being found.

If no one agrees on which epistles are genuinely Pauline in origin, it’s hard to bring even secondary means of authentication to bear.

One of the techniques to validate genuine Pauline material, is to break up the Pauline letters into the pages as they are, for every currently known manuscript. Then throw out all of the statistical data for each page,to find the consistently matching patterns.

The hardest part is locating usable copies of the manuscripts. CSNTM is doing some excellent work in making that data available.

jonathon

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The following is taken from the 2003 New Catholic Encyclopedia, v. 3, p. 20:

Inspiration and Canonicity. All the books in the canon are inspired, but it is debated whether or not there is or could be [emphasis added] any inspired book that, because of its loss, is not in the canon. The Church has not settled the question. The more general opinion is that some inspired books probably have been lost. In 1 Cor 5.9, St. Paul refers to a previous letter of his, and in 2 Cor 2.3-9; 7.8-12 he refers to an earlier letter different from 1 Corinthians. However, not all agree on these conclusions. In Col 4.16 Paul speaks of a letter that he wrote to the Laodiceans, which as such is not extant, although it may possibly be our Ephesians. The OT, too, mentions lost books, which may have been inspired (1 Chr 29.29; 2 Chr 9.29; 12.15).

There is a difference in saying, “there could be inspired books that are not in the canon” and saying, “the canon can be added to.”

The canon is closed. We may speculate whether other texts were inspired, as Origen speculated that the Shepherd of Hermas was inspired (he thought that it was). However, Origen never called it canonized.

The difference between “speculation” and the certainty of Catholic faith is the very reason for a definitive decree on the “canon” of Scritpure.

The Church has definitively closed the canon of Scripture because it has decreed at Trent the list of Old Testament and New Testament books received by the Catholic Church as Holy Writ. It need not name in its decree all the books that are NOT in the canon to definitively (that is, unalterably) decree that which is among the Old Testament and New Testament books.

According to the Council of Trent, the Church “*receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments…as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church *”

If another “lost” book is out there, then by definition it has not “been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church,” and is therefore not among the canonical books.

One may speculate about the inspired nature of other texts. However, the Holy Bible is complete.

 

[erikd]

There is a difference in saying, “there could be inspired books that are not in the canon” and saying, “the canon can be added to.”

The canon is closed.

Dave:

Could you cite your sources? Or are you just explaining your opinion?

The Church has not settled the matter, as you pointed out in your quote from Jacobus. Remember, the Church has “not settled the matter” as certain Books could in fact be lost. During a recent episode of “Catholic Answers Live,” Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin stated that it would not be out of the question to consider revising the current Canon to include some of the Orthodox Canon, in an effort to once again unite the two branches of the Body of Christ. This is in harmony with the quote from the encyclopedia.

 

[juliamajor]

[edit] Latin Fathers
The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[21] Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[19] or if not the list is at least a sixth century compilation.[22] Likewise, Damasus’s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[23] In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead “were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church.”[24] Thus, from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today),[25] and by the fifth century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon.[26]
By custom the canon has closed since Council of Rome but Council of Trent made it official just like the books contained therein were defined early on but made official by Trent.It;s not Dave’s opinion but law.Protestant denominations also around the same time defined and closed the Canon minus the deuterocanonicals. example of the mischief that an unclosed canon can cause-The book of Mormon.Exactly what the church wanted to avoid.
that the Bible canon is closed is the first thing you learn in biblical studies.If the Canon hadn’t been closed the debate and confusion caused would have been monumental and divisive to the nth degree.

 

[erikd]

[edit] Latin Fathers
The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[21] Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[19] or if not the list is at least a sixth century compilation.[22] Likewise, Damasus’s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[23] In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead “were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church.”[24] Thus, from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today),[25] and by the fifth century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon.[26]
By custom the canon has closed since Council of Rome but Council of Trent made it official just like the books contained therein were defined early on but made official by Trent.It;s not Dave’s opinion but law.Protestant denominations also around the same time defined and closed the Canon minus the deuterocanonicals. example of the mischief that an unclosed canon can cause-The book of Mormon.Exactly what the church wanted to avoid.
that the Bible canon is closed is the first thing you learn in biblical studies.If the Canon hadn’t been closed the debate and confusion caused would have been monumental and divisive to the nth degree.

Julia:

The distinction here is what has been accepted and what has been flatly rejected. What you have referred to are Books that were absolutely accepted. The Church, however, has never stated that never will another Book be added to this Canon.

As far as the history of this, thank you for all the sources. I have a wonderful piece of software, available through Catholic answers called the “Faith Database” and have already argued all the points you just made. Those points, however, only point to the Books that were accepted. Nowhere in those points does the Church state that the Canon is closed, that no other Books will ever be added, etc. If it does, I challenge you to prove it.

Also, as a side note, the council of Carthage (419 AD Canon XXIII) and the Council of Rome (382 AD) list 71 Books of the Bible, not 73. Look for the Books of Baruch or Lamentations and you will not find them there. They were there, just not listed. These Books were originally part of Jeremiah, as Lamentations was written by Jeremiah and Baruch was Jeremiah’s secretary. In later years, the Canon changed to 73 Books, though containing still the same writings. Just an example of what has been officially accepted vs. what has not been officially declared uncanonical.

As far as your comment on the Book of Mormon, or the non-Catholic Canon, those were atrosities, as you would say, to the “nth degree.” The Church, in Her wisdom would not allow such a thing to happen whether the Canon was closed or open.

So you see, what you are talking about is your opinion and Dave’s opinion not necessarily fact. The Church may, in fact, continue with the same Canon until the end of time, but has never declared that She would. The only thing Mother Church has declared is that the Books you are currently reading, the 73 Books in every Catholic Bible, are in fact Canonical and can be undoubtedly trusted. Those Books will always be part of the Canon of Scripture.

If you still doubt my words, I challenge you to do two things. #1: Show me where the Councils you mentioned, or any other Councils for that matter, say that no other Book will ever be added to this Canon, and #2: Call catholic answers on Tuesday or Thursday during their open forum discussion, and ask this question to an apologist who studies this for a living. I don’t think you’ll come back feeling the same way you originally did.

 

[juliamajor]

This interesting because it comes from a LDS website that can show you the errors of an open canon. By the way I went to seminary to be schooled in the Bible for 4 yrs
.Where my proffessor told us about the closed canon.Which was confirmed by by bishop and parish priest. I’d rather go with their knowledge then your opinion.
"
Catholic Doctrine

” ‘…no new revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Yet even if revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries….Christian faith cannot accept ‘revelations’ that claim to surpass or correct the revelations of which Christ is the fulfillment, as in the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such ‘revelations.’ ” (Catechism of the Catholic Church. [New York: Doubleday, 1995], pp. 27-28 paragraphs 66-67).

In other words, it took time “over the course of the centuries” to develop “Christian faith” since the completed revelation of ancient prophets and apostles “has not been made completely explicit.” However, there will be no more revelation to clarify this confusion. Therefore, beware of any claiming to have more revelation (like the LDS)!

Protestant Doctrine

“Since the completion of the biblical books, there is no further divine inspiration for the writing of Scripture….Jesus Christ has done all that he can do in his redemptive purposes until his return to the earth. And in the available canon we have all the truths necessary to acceptance with God and for an abundant life. All the noncontradictory teachings of alleged recent revelations together do no add anything significant to scriptural teachings on God, mankind, sin, salvation, the church, and things to come. The commission of the apostles was unique and norepeatable…All the alleged revelations of spiritists, Latter-Day Saints, Christian Scientists, and others put together do not add anything significant to the teaching of Scripture…What people need nos is not more revelations but more faithfulness to the Spirit-illumined applications of biblical principles to specific situations” (Lewis, Gordon R., & Demarest, Bruce A., Integrative Theology. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan]. 1:116-117).

These authors would have us believe that:

1. There can be no more apostles.
2. There can be no more scripture other than what is in the Bible.
3. Jesus Christ can do no more for man’s salvation than what he has already done.
4. LDS revelation does not add “anything significant” to our understanding of God.
5. et cetera

The message is clear: We are not to expect God to speak anymore to lead us to salvation. We have “scholars” who can do that for Him based on their interpretation of the Bible.

Mormon Doctrine

“From what we can draw from the Scriptures relative to the teaching of heaven, we are induced to think that much instruction has been given to man since the beginning which we do not possess now. This may not agree with the opinions of some of our friends who are bold to say that we have everything written in the Bible which God ever spoke to man since the world began, and that if He had ever said anything more we should certainly have received it. But we ask, does it remain for a people who never had faith enough to call down one scrap of revelation from heaven, and for all they have now are indebted to the faith of another people who lived hundreds and thousands of years before them, does it remain for them to say how much God has spoken and how much He has not spoken? We have what we have, and the Bible contains what it does contain: but to say that God never said anything more to man than is there recorded would be saying at once that we have at least received a revelation: for it must require one to advance thus far, because it is nowhere said in that volume by the mouth of God, that He would not, after giving what is there contained, speak again; and if any man has found out for a fact that the Bible contains all that God ever revealed to man he has ascertained it by an immediate revelation, other than has been previously written by the prophets and apostles” (Joseph Smith, The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976], pp 61-62).

The irony is obvious. The idea of a closed canon, i.e. all necessary truth is already found in the Bible, is extra-Biblical. Logically, if a person proclaims that doctrine and belief must be derived from the Bible alone (sola scriptura), shouldn’t the Bible say so? Further, if revelation was supposed to cease, how shall we know it without a revelation saying so?

Final Thoughts

This is clearly one of the biggest differences, if not the biggest difference, between LDS and mainstream Christian beliefs. I must here admit, I have never found any arguments against modern revelation or a closed canon convincing. While it is one thing to argue that Joseph Smith didn’t receive true revelations (in actuality), it is another to argue that he couldn’t have received revelation (in theory)."

 

[erikd]

The following is taken from the 2003 New Catholic Encyclopedia, v. 3, p. 20:

Inspiration and Canonicity. All the books in the canon are inspired, but it is debated whether or not there is or could be [emphasis added] any inspired book that, because of its loss, is not in the canon. **The Church has not settled the question. **The more general opinion is that some inspired books probably have been lost. In 1 Cor 5.9, St. Paul refers to a previous letter of his, and in 2 Cor 2.3-9; 7.8-12 he refers to an earlier letter different from 1 Corinthians. However, not all agree on these conclusions. In Col 4.16 Paul speaks of a letter that he wrote to the Laodiceans, which as such is not extant, although it may possibly be our Ephesians. The OT, too, mentions lost books, which may have been inspired (1 Chr 29.29; 2 Chr 9.29; 12.15).

Julia:

Perhaps this will help to clear up the confusion.

 

[Dennis_Dixon]

I moved to Ogden Utah in 1986 on a construction job. During my first week there at Mass, the priest asked me if I would help with his RCIA classes. He gave me a book called, “A tale of Two Cities” (Rome - vs Salt Lake City)
It was written by a priest that grew up alone the Idaho/Utah border, and later converted to Catholicism.
Basically, the book showed the historical inaccuracies of the Book of Mormon.

It stated that the book of Mormon used terms that did not exist when the book was supposedly written.

It has been awhile since I read it but the lesson still stays with me.
The word may have been Messiah. The word Messiah did not become a word until the 3rd century, and the book was written in the first century.

That would be like watching a movie about World War Two and the guys are telling each other to “Chill out”
It just would not be historically accurate.
After finding this out I did not spend much time reading the book of Mormon.:twocents:
Dennis

 

[napoli426]

Holy Mother Church says the bible is complete…so it’s complete…end of discussion.

Pax

 

[erikd]

Holy Mother Church says the bible is complete…so it’s complete…end of discussion.

Pax

Thank you for your opinion but please refer back to the quote on post 53 to find what the Church actually says. I think this is all blown out of proportion. The Church has canonized 73 Books of the Bible. It has said that some Books are worthy of reading but not Canonical. It has never, however, as the quote on post 53 states, closed the matter. As I stated before, you don’t have to take my word for it. Look at the Catholic Encyclopedia, or call Catholic answers during their open forum discussions on Tuesday and Thursday. Please do not express personal opinions as canonical decisions of the Church. There are enough resources available through this website and this forum that noone should ever espouse their personal beliefs and or desires as the truth of the Church. Please use them.