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

  • Thread starter Thread starter PRmerger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.”
👍

Yep. Christ says so in Mark 10.
“Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment."
The “he” here is Moses.

6 “But from the beginning of creation”,
The 'but" means on the contrary.

‘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.”

One man. One woman. Joined together. The two become one flesh. That’s God’s teaching from the beginning of creation, affirmed by Christ, and condemning the secular rules of His time, just like He here is also condemning the modernist secular norms.

Jon
 
**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.
Augsburg Confession
Article XVIII: Of Free Will.
1] Of Free Will they teach that man’s will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work 2] things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man 3] receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2:14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received 4] through the Word. These things are said in as many words by Augustine in his Hypognosticon, Book III: We grant that all men have a free will, free, inasmuch as it has the judgment of reason; not that it is thereby capable, without God, either to begin, or, at least, to complete aught in things pertaining to God, but only in works of this life, whether good 5] or evil. “Good” I call those works which spring from the good in nature, such as, willing to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to have a friend, to clothe oneself, to build a house, to marry a wife, to raise cattle, to learn diverse useful arts, or whatsoever good 6]pertains to this life. For all of these things are not without dependence on the providence of God; yea, of Him and through Him they are and have their being. “Evil” 7] I call such works as willing to worship an idol, to commit murder, etc. 8] They condemn the Pelagians and others, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the power of nature alone, we are able to love God above all things; also to do the commandments of God as touching “the substance of the act.” For, although nature is able in a manner to do the outward work, 9] (for it is able to keep the hands from theft and murder,) yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, etc.
I believe the devolving of American society, as we are witnessing it right before our eyes, comes from the false idea that freedom means license, that no one can judge me or what I believe. It comes from the desire to replace God’s law and will with our own. We decide, not God, what is right and wrong. Under this, we will most often get it wrong.

Jon
 
👍

Yep. Christ says so in Mark 10.
“Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment."
The “he” here is Moses.
Abraham had two wives, Sarah and Hagar, but I wouldn’t have thought of him as being someone who was hard of heart:

Genesis 16:3: So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her slave-girl, and gave her to her husband Abram as a wife

Or what about Gideon?

Judges 8:29-32: Now Gideon had seventy sons, his own offspring,for he had many wives. And his concubine who was in Shechem also bore him a son, and he called his name Abimelech
 
One man. One woman. Joined together. The two become one flesh. That’s God’s teaching from the beginning of creation, affirmed by Christ, and condemning the secular rules of His time, just like He here is also condemning the modernist secular norms.

Jon
Why didn’t God tell Abraham that it was wrong for him to marry Hagar? For example:

Genesis 18: The Lord appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the entrance of his tent in the heat of the day. 2 He looked up and saw three men standing near him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent entrance to meet them, and bowed down to the ground. 3 He said, “My lord, if I find favor with you, do not pass by your servant. 4 Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree.

So why didn’t God tell Abraham that it displeased Him that Abraham had married Hagar as a second wife when he talked to him? Abraham even said, ““My lord, if I find favor with you, do not pass by your servant.” Surely this would have been an opportunity for God to have told Abraham that he didn’t approve of this practice of having more than one wife. After all, Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac because God had commanded it. I’m sure he would have not married Hagar if God had forbidden it.
 
Based on this, how do I know, then, whether or not the Prayer of Manasseh is or is not God-breathed.
A standard maxim is: Read the bible in the Spirit, and the Spirit in the bible.

In other words, use what God breathed into you to guide your reading, and find in your reading what God breathed into you - use one to verify the other.

The maxim says “bible”, but it applies to anything (to believe something is God-breathed just because it’s in the bible, or not God-breathed just because it isn’t, is considered irrational and occult, i.e. not God-breathed).
 
Yes, it’s the same question, inocente.

Theopneustos = Scripture.
No it isn’t. Just look at the interlinear I linked:

God-breathed = θεόπνευστος (theopneustos)
Scripture = γραφὴ (graphē)

They are totally different words. If they meant the same then 2 Tim 3:16 would start “All Scripture is Scripture”, which would be silly. It doesn’t, it starts “All Scripture is God-breathed”.

Also, this is an English-language forum, and your transliterated Greek word doesn’t appear in any dictionaries, so why use it rather than the English translation God-breathed or inspired by God? I mean if you want to sound authentic, you could at least use the real original Greek θεόπνευστος rather than a made-up word.
*Well, first you have to accept what the CC declared IS Scripture.
You read it, study it, as provided by the CC, and then you can know if something is theopneustos.
But the point remains, you accept what the CC discerned…
at least as far as the 27 book canon of the NT is concerned.*
I think your argument is never going to work.
  1. It can only apply to the NT, as (roughly) what we call the OT already existed when 2 Tim 3 was written.
  2. The formation on the NT canon happened over a long time and is way more complicated than you make out.
  3. It all took place before the Reformation anyway.
  4. You’re talking to people who accept no authority over Christ.
  5. It comes close to reducing faith down to which football team’s badge someone wears on their lapel - “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord” 🙂
 
A standard maxim is: Read the bible in the Spirit, and the Spirit in the bible.

In other words, use what God breathed into you to guide your reading, and find in your reading what God breathed into you - use one to verify the other.

The maxim says “bible”, but it applies to anything (to believe something is God-breathed just because it’s in the bible, or not God-breathed just because it isn’t, is considered irrational and occult, i.e. not God-breathed).
It is considered irrational and occult…by whom? Baptists?

Just wondering.

I agree with you that it is irrational simply to believe something is God-breathed because it’s in the Bible. It’s circular, actually. “I believe something is inspired because it’s in the Bible. And it’s in the Bible, therefore it’s inspired!”
 
No it isn’t. Just look at the interlinear I linked:

God-breathed = θεόπνευστος (theopneustos)
Scripture = γραφὴ (graphē)

They are totally different words. If they meant the same then 2 Tim 3:16 would start “All Scripture is Scripture”, which would be silly. It doesn’t, it starts “All Scripture is God-breathed”.

Also, this is an English-language forum, and your transliterated Greek word doesn’t appear in any dictionaries, so why use it rather than the English translation God-breathed or inspired by God? I mean if you want to sound authentic, you could at least use the real original Greek θεόπνευστος rather than a made-up word.
Because when I use the word “inspired”, some folks think it to mean, “inspiring”, like, “This haiku is inspired!”

Sweet, fresh Nutella
Oh, yes, I adore it so
My Nutella mine!

So…theopneustos makes it clear I mean something other than “inspiring”.
I think your argument is never going to work.
  1. It can only apply to the NT, as (roughly) what we call the OT already existed when 2 Tim 3 was written.
This point is irrelevant.

You still have NO IDEA what’s theopneustos and what’s not, as far as the canon of the NT…except that you defer to the authority of the CC telling you, say, Hebrews is inspired but the Shepherd of Hermas is not.
  1. The formation on the NT canon happened over a long time and is way more complicated than you make out.
This too is irrelevant.

No one has posited that it was a simple process.

And the point remains: you still have NO IDEA what’s theopneustos and what’s not, as far as the canon of the NT…except that you defer to the authority of the CC telling you, say, Hebrews is inspired but the Shepherd of Hermas is not.
  1. It all took place before the Reformation anyway.
#alsoirrelevant

You still have NO IDEA what’s theopneustos and what’s not, as far as the canon of the NT…except that you defer to the authority of the CC telling you, say, Hebrews is inspired but the Shepherd of Hermas is not.
  1. You’re talking to people who accept no authority over Christ.
Right. And that’s why I’m trying to connect the dots for you all.
  1. It comes close to reducing faith down to which football team’s badge someone wears on their lapel - “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord” 🙂
It’s simply a way to put the pieces together.

It’s like Protestants are saying:

I don’t like vegetables
I do like turnips, beets, carrots and green beans.

And I am simply saying, “Then you do like vegetables!”
 
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.
Then how do you know that your sins are forgiven? How do you know that God is love? How do you know that Jesus is Divine?
 
Goodness no. Why would you think I believe it is the HS who gets it wrong? :eek:
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
But, Jon, think about this: you believe that the CC got it right as far as the canon of the NT is concerned. You believe that the HS was involved in this process.

Yet you believe that the CC just happened to get it right, NOT that the HS guided the Church, infallibly, in this process?

Am I correctly summarizing your position?
 
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?
That is correct.

But this not to be interpreted as my saying, “Therefore these passages in the OT are not theopneustos”.

Rather, they are indeed God’s Word, but they need to be interpreted correctly, through the lens of Sacred Tradition.
 
Abraham had two wives, Sarah and Hagar, but I wouldn’t have thought of him as being someone who was hard of heart:

Genesis 16:3: So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her slave-girl, and gave her to her husband Abram as a wife

Or what about Gideon?

Judges 8:29-32: Now Gideon had seventy sons, his own offspring,for he had many wives. And his concubine who was in Shechem also bore him a son, and he called his name Abimelech
Again, you are taking things that are RECORDED in Scripture as what God wills.

Take this verse: "As the people grumbled against Moses, saying, “What are we to drink?” from Exodus…surely you’re not of the position that God is commanding us to grumble when we’re thirsty, right?
 
Then, dear Rita, it would be correct to assume that you believe in the charism of infallibility.

That is, at least as far as the canon of the NT is concerned.

For unless you believe the CC/ECFs got it wrong when they met to discern the canon, you believe that the HS guided them to the correct 27 books, right?
Yes, I do believe the Holy Spirit was involved in their compilation of the 27 books of the New Testament.

As far as infallibility, I’m not so sure about that. There are doctrines within the Church that I find hard to believe and that is unsettling to me - still reading, studying and researching (slowly, unfortunately).

God bless, friend PR!

Rita
 
Yes, I do believe the Holy Spirit was involved in their compilation of the 27 books of the New Testament.

As far as infallibility, I’m not so sure about that. There are doctrines within the Church that I find hard to believe and that is unsettling to me - still reading, studying and researching (slowly, unfortunately).

God bless, friend PR!

Rita
Let’s just specify: do you believe, since the Holy Spirit was involved in the process, that the Church was able to follow its guidance and, without error, compile the 27 book canon of the NT?
 
Let’s just specify: do you believe, since the Holy Spirit was involved in the process, that the Church was able to follow its guidance and, without error, compile the 27 book canon of the NT?
I understand that the development of the 27 book canon was over the first 3 centuries as the Early Church Fathers with the help of the Holy Spirit began to decide which letters (the 4 Gospels, Paul’s letters, John’s letters, etc) and then, through the councils confirmed the 27 books that we use today.

I’m not sure where you’re going with your question - if it has to do with the infallibility of the Church throughout the past 2000 years, I’m not there yet.

But, again, I do believe that the Holy Spirit was involved in the development of the canon of the NT.

Blessings!

Rita
 
I understand that the development of the 27 book canon was over the first 3 centuries as the Early Church Fathers with the help of the Holy Spirit began to decide which letters (the 4 Gospels, Paul’s letters, John’s letters, etc) and then, through the councils confirmed the 27 books that we use today.
Yes. This is correct.

Men, over 3 centuries, guided by the Holy Spirit, discerned what books were theopneustos.

To be specific, they were Catholic men. Actually, Catholic bishops.
I’m not sure where you’re going with your question - if it has to do with the infallibility of the Church throughout the past 2000 years, I’m not there yet.
Not over the past 2000 years.

I am just asking you to consider your views on infallibility as it applies to the canon of the NT.

You can see how, over the 3 centuries, the Holy Spirit guided these Catholic bishops, to correctly discern the 27 book canon…

and this means…that you understand the Church to have been given the gift of infallibility over this particular decision.

That is, if you believe that the 27 book canon is correct.

Now, if you believe that one or more of those books should have been excluded…or one or more of these other ancient Christian texts should have been included…then I suppose you could argue that the Church ISN’T infallible…

but if you believe that each and every book that’s in the NT is correctly there…then the logical conclusion is that you believe the Church received the charism of infallibility.

At least for this particular issue: the canon of the NT.
 
Yes. This is correct.

Men, over 3 centuries, guided by the Holy Spirit, discerned what books were theopneustos.

To be specific, they were Catholic men. Actually, Catholic bishops.

Not over the past 2000 years.

I am just asking you to consider your views on infallibility as it applies to the canon of the NT.

You can see how, over the 3 centuries, the Holy Spirit guided these Catholic bishops, to correctly discern the 27 book canon…

and this means…that you understand the Church to have been given the gift of infallibility over this particular decision.

That is, if you believe that the 27 book canon is correct.

Now, if you believe that one or more of those books should have been excluded…or one or more of these other ancient Christian texts should have been included…then I suppose you could argue that the Church ISN’T infallible…

but if you believe that each and every book that’s in the NT is correctly there…then the logical conclusion is that you believe the Church received the charism of infallibility.

At least for this particular issue: the canon of the NT.
That conclusion is too black and white and does not seem logical to me- the NT canon was developed over many years with men who wanted certain manuscripts and others who didn’t. I do believe that the Holy Spirit did direct the men to choose those letters that were inspired and was the impetus for the final selection. I believe at that time the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit to make such an important decision that would impact the world for many years.

The Holy Spirit works through the lives of all Christians but free will sometimes gets in the way and people do ignore His direction. That was clear in the early years with the Gnostics and other groups that distorted the teachings of Christ.

Sorry if I got off topic but I have no problem with the Catholic Church in the first few hundred years. As I study I see things that were problems where men did not listen to the Holy Spirit and doctrines developed that weren’t lined up with Christ’s teachings given to the Apostles. I could be wrong and I will be the first to say that if given information otherwise.

I’m slow with my studying as my fibromyalgia affects my cognitive processing.

In Christ,

Rita
 
That conclusion is too black and white and does not seem logical to me- the NT canon was developed over many years with men who wanted certain manuscripts and others who didn’t. I do believe that the Holy Spirit did direct the men to choose those letters that were inspired and was the impetus for the final selection. I believe at that time the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit to make such an important decision that would impact the world for many years.
And this is nothing but an acknowledgement of the charism of infallibility, luv!
The Holy Spirit works through the lives of all Christians but free will sometimes gets in the way and people do ignore His direction. That was clear in the early years with the Gnostics and other groups that distorted the teachings of Christ.
It would seem that you agree that the Catholic bishops did indeed heed the call of the Holy Spirit when they met and discerned the canon of the NT? That is, you feel like they did NOT ignore His direction, at least as it applies to the canon of the NT?

Yes?
 
Sorry if I got off topic but I have no problem with the Catholic Church in the first few hundred years. As I study I see things that were problems where men did not listen to the Holy Spirit and doctrines developed that weren’t lined up with Christ’s teachings given to the Apostles.
Can you give some examples of which doctrines developed that weren’t lined up with Christ’s teachings?
I could be wrong and I will be the first to say that if given information otherwise.
I’m certain of that, dearest Rita! :hug1:
 
That is correct.

But this not to be interpreted as my saying, “Therefore these passages in the OT are not theopneustos”.

Rather, they are indeed God’s Word, but they need to be interpreted correctly, through the lens of Sacred Tradition.
I have to say, Thorolfr is demonstrating your whole point perfectly. There are so many parts in the Bible that do not seem to belong and even appear to contradict other parts of the Bible, that just reading it could not possibly tell us whether it’s inspired or not. Especially when you’re slogging through all those genealogies and battles.

Even though I disagree with his position, it really is the natural conclusion to come to if one rejects the Church’s authority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top