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

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;13140364]It means that you do acknowledge that the Church was given the charism of infallibility, at least as far as canon of the NT is concerned.

It depends on what you mean by “charism of infallibility”. If you mean that the bishops gathered, of which the pope of Rome happened to be just one of them (or his representative), and it was a truly ecumenical council, it is something we can consider.
Otherwise, we can surely agree on the authoritative nature of a truly ecumenical council.

Yes.
And in Tradition.

OK

But you wouldn’t know what IS Scripture, except through the authority of the CC.

And the Church would not know its role had the apostles and others during that era, not written it down.

So, when it comes to knowing what belongs in the Bible (NT), the ONLY authority you defer to is Christ’s Church.

OK, so long as we understand that we are speaking of the Church Catholic, which includes but is not limited to those in communion with the Bishop of Rome. We also recognize that, within Christ’s Church, the OT canon is not now, nor has it ever been, uniform.

NOT the Bible.

Without scripture, we do not know what the Church’s role or authority is.

So…in the case of the canon of the NT, your authority is the Church.

NOT the Bible.

Of course the Church has authority to teach. That authority comes from Christ, and we know about because of scripture, and yes, the traditions we find immediately following the apostolic era.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

This is true.

Yet it is an untenable position to take our Holy Book and declare it to be an infallible oracle from God, without acknowledging that the men who brought you this Book did this (under the direction of the HS)…INFALLIBLY.

Once the dots are connected, it makes it clear that no one can accept the canon of the NT without also declaring, “The CC received the charism of infallibility in this case”.

It is the Holy Book of all of Christendom. And I agree we must acknowledge the men through whom the Holy Spirit worked. And if infallibly means “they got it right through the guidance of the Holy Spirit”, yes!

And we have to accept that the Church Catholic is not only and exclusively those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

It depends on what you mean by “charism of infallibility”. If you mean that the bishops gathered, of which the pope of Rome happened to be just one of them (or his representative), and it was a truly ecumenical council, it is something we can consider.

Yes. In the history of Christ’s Church, men met, Catholic men, Catholic bishops, to be exact, to discern which books belong in the NT and which books were not theopneustos. These men were guided by the HS, and were able to correctly discern a 27 book canon of the NT.

These men, were, therefore, infallible, when they made this decision.

Therefore, you do believe that men can indeed be infallible.

And the Church would not know its role had the apostles and others during that era, not written it down.

I don’t know how you know this.

What apostles wrote down that the Church would determine which books are theopneustos?

Without scripture, we do not know what the Church’s role or authority is.

Of course we do. There was Church authority before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

 

[PRmerger]

IAnd if infallibly means “they got it right through the guidance of the Holy Spirit”, yes!

Yes!!

 

[GKC]

Yes!!

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m41a8wsSoE1r7z57y.gif

Yep.

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;13140393]Isn’t this BACKWARDS, Jon?

No.

Don’t you assert that your Christian teachings come from the Bible, NOT (as the CC asserts) that the Bible reflects our doctrines?

Not exactly, we assert that the Bible is the norm by which doctrine is held accountable. OTOH, wasn’t it Pope Paul VI who said that the teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, or something to that effect? You make it sound like Catholics think the Bible is a rubber stamp.

So this means, from your POV, you don’t get to read a text and decide, “It’s Christian”.

Well, I don’t, personally get to say that with any kind of authority… I was merely commenting that it doesn’t seem realistic to imply that the DC’s are not in the Jewish canon (assuming that would be the right word), because they foretell in some undeniable way, Christianity.

Rather, you read the theopneustos text and declare, “It says, A, B and C, so now I teach A, B and C.”

Actually, things not in scripture can also be taught and believed - Mary’s perpetual virginity, for example. We just assert that they cannot be articles of faith without scriptural affirmation.

Do you see what I am trying to articulate? I don’t feel I am effectively presenting my point, so if this is not clear, I will try to rephrase.

Yes, I see what you are trying to articulate.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Yes!!

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m41a8wsSoE1r7z57y.gif

Good. So, we agree the ex cathedra thing isn’t relevant.

Jon

 

[Kay_Cee]

Excuse me for not reading this entire thread, but I just want to make a comment.

My sister, in a discussion with a Protestant on Youtube, told him that Jesus said, “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."

But she forgot to put in the scriptural reference.

Well, this guy flat out told her that was not scripture. (Of course she had him look up Matthew 23:1-3.)

So now I suppose someone will claim that particular guy was not being led by the Holy Spirit, but those who are led by the Holy Spirit can discern what is scripture just by reading it.

The problem, of course, is how do you determine that you personally are being led by the Holy Spirit?

Wouldn’t a good test be to give someone twenty quotes, only one of which is scripture, and have him, without looking anything up, tell you which one it is? If someone is truly being led by the Holy Spirit to determine what is scripture and what isn’t, such a person should pass that test easily.

 

[PRmerger]

Wouldn’t a good test be to give someone twenty quotes, only one of which is scripture, and have him, without looking anything up, tell you which one it is? If someone is truly being led by the Holy Spirit to determine what is scripture and what isn’t, such a person should pass that test easily.

I have actually proposed that here. No one has actually taken me up on it, though.

And the thing is…some Protestant folks here seem to be suggesting that the authority to determine what’s Scripture and what’s not lies in their own person.

Thus, they could read a particular text, and decide for themselves whether it’s truly theopneustos or not.

I find this paradigm to be astonishing.

Absolutely astonishing.

 

[PRmerger]

Good. So, we agree the ex cathedra thing isn’t relevant.

Jon

Not relevant in the context of this discussion. Sure.

But the Church has indeed discerned, without error, and under the guidance of the HS, what belongs in the NT.

The Church was given the charism of infallibility in this case.

 

[PRmerger]

Not exactly, we assert that the Bible is the norm by which doctrine is held accountable.

So you can’t look at the DCs and assert, “There is nothing in there which is doctrinal.”

In your paradigm, the Bible came first, then the doctrines.

So you would have to defer to what the DCs profess, if they are indeed theopneustos.

OTOH, wasn’t it Pope Paul VI who said that the teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, or something to that effect? You make it sound like Catholics think the Bible is a rubber stamp.

Both views are correct.

The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

As such, the Bible reflects the teachings of the CC.

NOT: the teachings of the CC come from the Bible.

We do not glean our doctrines from a book, no matter how holy this book is.

We are a people of the Word. Not a religion of the book.

Well, I don’t, personally get to say that with any kind of authority… I was merely commenting that it doesn’t seem realistic to imply that the DC’s are not in the Jewish canon (assuming that would be the right word), because they foretell in some undeniable way, Christianity.

Ok.

But just to clarify: the DCs* are i*n the Jewish canon. They were written by Jews, for Jews, and to be fulfilled in the NT Scriptures.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I think we would be doing an injustice to the scripture if we said there was nothing to the idea of reading it and understanding it’s power or perhaps authority. The scripture has had an authority and power few texts have ever had. In that same breath however, if it were not for the action of the church in preserving that tradition which affirms and tells us this is authoritative scripture in the first place we would not have the bible, at least in the form it is today.

 

[benjohnson]

Well, it was you who asserted that the CC teaches things which the Apostles and Christ didn’t teach…so it would appear that the onus is actually on you, no?

You shouldn’t get too many Lutherans disputing this teaching as a pious belief… what you will find are Lutheran who don’t think that accepting this teaching will effect salvation as proscribed by the Pope Pious IX in 1854.

 

[JonNC]

Not relevant in the context of this discussion. Sure.

But the Church has indeed discerned, without error, and under the guidance of the HS, what belongs in the NT.

The Church was given the charism of infallibility in this case.

As long as we’re clear, then. The teachings of the truly ecumenical councils are authoritative, whether or not we use the term charism of infallibility.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

Thus, they could read a particular text, and decide for themselves whether it’s truly theopneustos or not.

Oh that’s easy… if there’s a bunch of thees and thous then it must be God-breathed.

If the King’s english was good enough for Jesus then it’s good enough for me.

(Runs away and hides)

 

[benjohnson]

I think we would be doing an injustice to the scripture if we said there was nothing to the idea of reading it and understanding it’s power or perhaps authority.

For me that was the case - a approached the Bible as an agnostic and viewed it a literature. I came away a Christian.

 

[JonNC]

I think we would be doing an injustice to the scripture if we said there was nothing to the idea of reading it and understanding it’s power or perhaps authority. The scripture has had an authority and power few texts have ever had. In that same breath however, if it were not for the action of the church in preserving that tradition which affirms and tells us this is authoritative scripture in the first place we would not have the bible, at least in the form it is today.

I think this is a balance that many Lutherans could value. As I quoted earlier, the teaching authority of the Church is indeed affirmed in scripture.

Jon

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

For me that was the case - a approached the Bible as an agnostic and viewed it a literature. I came away a Christian.

The problem from a historical standpoint is this however, would one be able to determine the individual books of the bible as inspired, if the bible did not carry the same sort of authority as it does in western society? If we had a room in which there were all the books of the bible in individual volumes that are believed by most orthodox churches, and two hundred works of a similar nature of near eastern religious significance and then the gnostic gospels and early church fathers, would we say with any certainty we could determine the books without some sort of prior knowledge of Christianity or the idea of a bible in the first place?

It is possible, but perhaps unlikely. Not without a guiding rule or principle which was believed in first, ie that Christ rose from the dead and died for sins. The Canon of Truth in otherwords.

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;13140719]So you can’t look at the DCs and assert, “There is nothing in there which is doctrinal.”

I’m a layman.

In your paradigm, the Bible came first, then the doctrines.

In my paradigm, the writings we know as NT scripture were sometimes spoken, sometimes written as correspondence. Other than the one in Acts, all the councils happened following the Apostolic era, unless I’m mistaken. Now,I don’t know if that means the doctrine of the Trinity, for example, came before or after the writings that make up the NT, or even if it matters.

So you would have to defer to what the DCs profess, if they are indeed theopneustos.

Well, the interpretation of them by my communion, more accurately.

The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

As such, the Bible reflects the teachings of the CC.

NOT: the teachings of the CC come from the Bible.

We do not glean our doctrines from a book, no matter how holy this book is.

We are a people of the Word. Not a religion of the book.

The book is merely the truth of the Gospel (the Word) in written form. I’m not entirely sure we disagree.

But just to clarify: the DCs* are i*n the Jewish canon. They were written by Jews, for Jews, and to be fulfilled in the NT Scriptures.

They may not agree, particularly with the last part.

Jon

 

[Thorolfr]

The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

As such, the Bible reflects the teachings of the CC.

Most Bible scholars believe that the different gospels in the New Testament came out of different early Christian communities that had slightly different views. It’s pretty plain, at least to me, that the Gospel of Matthew, for example, did not come out of the same Christian milieu as the Gospel of John. This does not look like one unified Catholic church with one unified set of teachings and one unified way of looking at Jesus in the first century.