NonCatholics: Are you able to know it's Scripture from reading a text?

[alchemon]

The nother thing a Catholic needs to do is discuss “charism of infallibility”. This is not usually in the nomenclature of non-Catholics. Many will read this and hear - “the pope is infallible”, which we will reject out of hand.
Being right about even a lot of things does not mean infallible.

Jon

I believe that Catholics, in general, have done a very poor job on portraying papal infallible. I believe that the office of the Pope was given “the keys” but 99.9999 percent of the time that the Pope speaks it is the man speaking, not the office. True infallibly is then an attribute of the office rather than the person, hence the former Pope Benedict, while still alive, is not capable of infallibility. So, in general, I believe that the Pope, the man, is basically a theologian unless the office, and by extension him personally, speaks infallibly and deliberately.

 

[JonNC]

I believe that Catholics, in general, have done a very poor job on portraying papal infallible. I believe that the office of the Pope was given “the keys” but 99.9999 percent of the time that the Pope speaks it is the man speaking, not the office. True infallibly is then an attribute of the office rather than the person, hence the former Pope Benedict, while still alive, is not capable of infallibility. So, in general, I believe that the Pope, the man, is basically a theologian unless the office, and by extension him personally, speaks infallibly and deliberately.

I agree. Non-Catholics typically do not get the idea of ex cathedra.

But for reasons not related to this thread, I like the distinction you make between the man and the office.

Jon

 

[Flopfoot]

This amusing test demonstrates how it’s hard to tell the inspired word of God from ordinary text if you don’t know what you’re looking for

buzzfeed.com/lukelewis/heavy-metal-lyric-or-bible-verse

 

[PRmerger]

This amusing test demonstrates how it’s hard to tell the inspired word of God from ordinary text if you don’t know what you’re looking for

buzzfeed.com/lukelewis/heavy-metal-lyric-or-bible-verse

That’s hi-larious!!

 

[PRmerger]

I believe that Catholics, in general, have done a very poor job on portraying papal infallible. I believe that the office of the Pope was given “the keys” but 99.9999 percent of the time that the Pope speaks it is the man speaking, not the office. True infallibly is then an attribute of the office rather than the person, hence the former Pope Benedict, while still alive, is not capable of infallibility. So, in general, I believe that the Pope, the man, is basically a theologian unless the office, and by extension him personally, speaks infallibly and deliberately.

True, true.

But in the case of the canon of the NT I was speaking specifically of papal infallibility, but the infallibility of the Church in general.

 

[JonNC]

That’s hi-larious!!

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

The nother thing a Catholic needs to do is discuss “charism of infallibility”. This is not usually in the nomenclature of non-Catholics. Many will read this and hear - “the pope is infallible”, which we will reject out of hand.
Being right about even a lot of things does not mean infallible.

Jon

But you agree that the Holy Spirit was involved in directing the Church regarding the canon of the NT, yes?

And if the HS is involved, and the Church got it right…does not that mean that the charism of infallibility was invoked?

Now, if you’re saying that the Church just happened to know, without the guidance of the HS, what was theopneustos and what was not, then, I suppose it would be correct to say the Church was right without being infallible.

But…the Holy Spirit guiding the Church…means…she was given the charism of infallibility.

Yes?

 

[PRmerger]

I think the problem in this approach, PR, is the idea that if one accepts the CC’s discernment, then one should accept all of its discernment.

I am not proposing that…yet.

I am simply trying to get NonCatholic (Christian) folks to acknowledge:

1. they defer to the authority of the CC, on the canon of the NT.
2. this means that in this case Scripture is NOT their authority, but the Church is
3. and it also means that they believe that the Church received the charism of infallibility…at least as far as the canon of the NT

 

[PRmerger]

And I will respond with a question about how the patriarchate of Rome was able to do what I am saying not to do, as well (keeping in mind that I am as much a western Christian as you) around the 11th century.

He was not permitted to do this. It resulted in a schism.

But, again, you need to answer the question as to how Fr. Luther is given the thumbs up in your communion for doing something that no member of your communion could do to him (or current leaders).

How is that?

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;13135737]But you agree that the Holy Spirit was involved in directing the Church regarding the canon of the NT, yes?

Yes. I also think those, such as Eusebius of Caesarea was guided by the HS, even though he rejected St. James. The Spirit guides the Church, and her members.

And if the HS is involved, and the Church got it right…does not that mean that the charism of infallibility was invoked?

Invoked by whom? Again, explain exactly what charism of infallilibility means.

Now, if you’re saying that the Church just happened to know, without the guidance of the HS, what was theopneustos and what was not, then, I suppose it would be correct to say the Church was right without being infallible.

No. I m saying the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit, and they were right.

But…the Holy Spirit guiding the Church…means…she was given the charism of infallibility.

Infallibility implies they cannot be wrong. I think Eusebius (and Luther) were wrong about St. James. That doesn’t mean I think the Spirit abandoned them.

Yes?

Maybe. Depending on the meaning.

To fulfill this task of teaching the faith without error, Christ granted the Church the charism of infallibility in faith and morals: “In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the Apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in His own infallibility” (No. 889). **In essence, the charism of infallibility is the magisterium’s ability to know the truth of God and to teach without error. **As explained in Vatican II’s “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” (No. 25), this charism of infallibility is exercised in two ways: First, the college of bishops united with the Holy Father, “in their authoritative teaching concerning faith and morals,” can render an infallible teaching when “they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely.”

The exercise of the charism of infallibility often occurs during an ecumenical council (a formal meeting of all the bishops with the Holy Father). For instance, the Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea I (325) and Constantinople I (381) promulgated the Nicene Creed, an infallible testament of our faith. The articles of the creed are true and certain, and to deny any or part of them is heresy. These decisions of the councils on matters of faith and morals “must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith” (No. 25).

If this is the case, then this hasn’t happened since the Schism, since all of the bishops have not met together since then.

Second, the pope, as successor of St. Peter—the one declared as Rock and given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven along with the authority of bonding and loosing (Mt 16:13ff)—by virtue of his office as supreme pastor and teacher of the faithful, enjoys the charism of infallibility. Note that the emphasis is on the office of the pope, not on his human person. When the pope teaches infallibly, he is said to speak ex cathedra (“from the chair”), meaning by the authority given to the office of the pope by our Lord.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/EXPLINFA.htm

And this has no support either from scripture or the above mentioned early councils.

I tend to think of the truly ecumenical councils as being authoritative. If that is what is meant charism of infallibility, I can accept it in the 7 truly ecumenical councils.

Jon

 

[Thorolfr]

…What would tell you if something is theopneustos (inspired) or not?

I don’t think it’s possible to tell if something is inspired and I’m also not convinced that everything in our current Bible is inspired. In fact, I’m pretty sure that some of it, especially some things in the Old Testament, are not inspired. Some of what is in there seems completely contrary to what a just or loving God would have commanded, especially some of the terribly violent and cruel things. For example, I can’t imagine God would really have commanded the Israelites to commit genocide and wipe out whole peoples including women, children and animals or command that disobedient children should be stoned to death. Even later Jewish Rabbis were very disturbed by many of these passages.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t think it’s possible to tell if something is inspired and I’m also not convinced that everything in our current Bible is inspired. In fact, I’m pretty sure that some of it, especially some things in the Old Testament, are not inspired. Some of what is in there seems completely contrary to what a just or loving God would have commanded, especially some of the terribly violent things supposedly commanded by God. For example, I can’t imagine God would really have commanded the Israelites to commit genocide and wipe out whole peoples including women, children and animals or command that disobedient children should be stoned to death. Even later Jewish Rabbis were very disturbed by many of these passages.

Two thoughts.

1. As a Lutheran, I’m sure you understand the idea of scripture interpreting scripture. That being, that scripture does not contradict itself. It often helps to view to OT in light of the NT.
2. One must be quite careful, OTOH, not to believe that we have the privilege to judge God’s righteousness, or his wrath, and certainly not His doctrines.
   For example, in Mark 10, Jesus explicitly affirms God’s plan for marriage, as introduced in Genesis. If we claim that, because this is not consistent with the current secular norms, Mark 10 is clearly not inspired, then we make scripture, and therefore the faith, subject to modernist secular norms, instead of His will.

Jon

 

[alchemon]

I don’t think it’s possible to tell if something is inspired and I’m also not convinced that everything in our current Bible is inspired. In fact, I’m pretty sure that some of it, especially some things in the Old Testament, are not inspired. Some of what is in there seems completely contrary to what a just or loving God would have commanded, especially some of the terribly violent and cruel things. For example, I can’t imagine God would really have commanded the Israelites to commit genocide and wipe out whole peoples including women, children and animals or command that disobedient children should be stoned to death. Even later Jewish Rabbis were very disturbed by many of these passages.

The problem is that you are supposing goodness. Only God’s Will is good.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes. I also think those, such as Eusebius of Caesarea was guided by the HS, even though he rejected St. James.

Wait…what??

The HS guided Eusebius into thinking that St. James is not theopneustos?

 

[Thorolfr]

Two thoughts.

1. As a Lutheran, I’m sure you understand the idea of scripture interpreting scripture. That being, that scripture does not contradict itself. It often helps to view to OT in light of the NT.
2. One must be quite careful, OTOH, not to believe that we have the privilege to judge God’s righteousness, or his wrath, and certainly not His doctrines.
   For example, in Mark 10, Jesus explicitly affirms God’s plan for marriage, as introduced in Genesis. If we claim that, because this is not consistent with the current secular norms, Mark 10 is clearly not inspired, then we make scripture, and therefore the faith, subject to modernist secular norms, instead of His will.

Jon

It seems like God changes His mind a lot, allowing people not only to marry more than one wife and to divorce them and to marry women taken captive and to have concubines and then saying that this is no longer allowed. I guess that this is a case where there was no objective Truth.

Deuteronomy 21:10-17:

10 When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take them captive, 11 suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman whom you desire and want to marry, 12 and so you bring her home to your house: she shall shave her head, pare her nails, 13 discard her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house a full month, mourning for her father and mother; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

15 If a man has two wives, one of them loved and the other disliked, and if both the loved and the disliked have borne him sons, the firstborn being the son of the one who is disliked, 16 then on the day when he wills his possessions to his sons, he is not permitted to treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the firstborn. 17 He must acknowledge as firstborn the son of the one who is disliked, giving him a double portion[a] of all that he has; since he is the first issue of his virility, the right of the firstborn is his.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4:

1 Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; she then leaves his house 2 and goes off to become another man’s wife. 3 Then suppose the second man dislikes her, writes her a bill of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house (or the second man who married her dies); 4 her first husband, who sent her away, is not permitted to take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that would be abhorrent to the Lord, and you shall not bring guilt on the land that the Lord your God is giving you as a possession.

 

[PRmerger]

It seems like God changes His mind a lot, allowing people not only to marry more than one wife and to divorce them and to marry women taken captive and to have concubines and then saying that this is no longer allowed. I guess that this is a case where there was no objective Truth.

Deuteronomy 21:10-17:

10 When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take them captive, 11 suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman whom you desire and want to marry, 12 and so you bring her home to your house: she shall shave her head, pare her nails, 13 discard her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house a full month, mourning for her father and mother; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

15 If a man has two wives, one of them loved and the other disliked, and if both the loved and the disliked have borne him sons, the firstborn being the son of the one who is disliked, 16 then on the day when he wills his possessions to his sons, he is not permitted to treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the firstborn. 17 He must acknowledge as firstborn the son of the one who is disliked, giving him a double portion[a] of all that he has; since he is the first issue of his virility, the right of the firstborn is his.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4:

1 Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; she then leaves his house 2 and goes off to become another man’s wife. 3 Then suppose the second man dislikes her, writes her a bill of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house (or the second man who married her dies); 4 her first husband, who sent her away, is not permitted to take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that would be abhorrent to the Lord, and you shall not bring guilt on the land that the Lord your God is giving you as a possession.

Jesus says that from the beginning it was not so.

God didn’t design marriage to be like that. Man did.

Do not interpret things that are recorded in the Bible as necessarily that which God commanded or designed.

Otherwise, you would have to say, “God permitted man to crucify man, so that’s what He wants from us.”

 

[JonNC]

It seems like God changes His mind a lot, allowing people not only to marry more than one wife and to divorce them and to marry women taken captive and to have concubines and then saying that this is no longer allowed. I guess that this is a case where there was no objective Truth.

Deuteronomy 21:10-17:

10 When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take them captive, 11 suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman whom you desire and want to marry, 12 and so you bring her home to your house: she shall shave her head, pare her nails, 13 discard her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house a full month, mourning for her father and mother; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

15 If a man has two wives, one of them loved and the other disliked, and if both the loved and the disliked have borne him sons, the firstborn being the son of the one who is disliked, 16 then on the day when he wills his possessions to his sons, he is not permitted to treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the firstborn. 17 He must acknowledge as firstborn the son of the one who is disliked, giving him a double portion[a] of all that he has; since he is the first issue of his virility, the right of the firstborn is his.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4:

1 Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; she then leaves his house 2 and goes off to become another man’s wife. 3 Then suppose the second man dislikes her, writes her a bill of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house (or the second man who married her dies); 4 her first husband, who sent her away, is not permitted to take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that would be abhorrent to the Lord, and you shall not bring guilt on the land that the Lord your God is giving you as a possession.

So, did you read Mark 10? Did you read what Christ says? He responds specifically to this:

1And he left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan, and crowds gathered to him again. And again, as was his custom, he taught them.

2And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” 4They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” 5And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,a 8and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

10And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Scripture interprets scripture. The explanation is right there in Mark 10!

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Wait…what??

The HS guided Eusebius into thinking that St. James is not theopneustos?

Goodness no. Why would you think I believe it is the HS who gets it wrong?
Do you not agree that, regardless of the man, or woman, misunderstanding the guidance of the Spirit is possible? Do you not think that is why councils are needed, and not the ex cathedra idea?

Jon

 

[Thorolfr]

The problem is that you are supposing goodness. Only God’s Will is good.

So we can’t tell by our own reason what is good or bad, right or wrong or what is just or unjust? Do we have to be told in the Ten Commandments, for example, that it is wrong and unjust and not good to murder someone because we wouldn’t know this if God hadn’t told us?

God tells us that He loves justice (Isaiah 61:8: “For I the Lord love justice…”; Amos 5:24: “But let justice roll down like waters…”) and I think that we can tell by our own reason and in our hearts whether something is just or unjust. Therefore, something that plainly appears to be unjust in the Bible was probably not, in my opinion, inspired by God.

 

[Thorolfr]

God didn’t design marriage to be like that. **Man did. **

Do not interpret things that are recorded in the Bible as necessarily that which God commanded or designed.

Otherwise, you would have to say, “God permitted man to crucify man, so that’s what He wants from us.”

So you admit that some of the things supposedly commanded by God in Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy where probably not commanded by God? So he didn’t really give people permission to divorce, to sleep with captured women, and to have concubines, to own slaves, etc?

Leviticus 25:44:

44** As for the male and female slaves whom you may have**, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land;** and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property**.