Not the same God?

[Kathryn_Ann]

Matthew is correct. Catholics and all other Christians worship the same God.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

I recommend you share this with your husband and heal this rift between you.

In Christ Jesus,
Paul

Have to agree here. May God help heal the mis-understanding and bring true peace and unity to you both. May your day be blessed.

 

[CMatt25]

You must first have a starting point to determine whether something is inspired or not. How does one know?

God?

 

[kelman]

And yet they knew which books were inspired.

Except, of course, there was no tradition for the earliest of Christians to depend upon as they received inspired Scripture as such. However, you’re quite correct that the Holy Spirit aids His people in the receiving of inspired Scripture.

The canon of both the NT and OT was enumerated by Athanasius in 367AD before any “infallible” councils and even a few years earlier by Eusebius in 340AD

Okay. Can you cite your source, please?
And if this is true, was St. Athanasius going on his own gnostic knowledge, or do you believe he was assisted by the Holy Spirit in discerning this?

I’m sure he was aided by the Holy Spirit, although, no doubt he was simply going by the books already received by the churches since there were no church councils concerning the canon as of that date. Athanasius included the present canon in his Festal Letter of 367AD
bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html

Besides, it’s not as if the earliest Christians started with just a bunch of random books. They were a tight-knit community with known writers addressing an immediate audience so this accounts for the almost immediate acceptance of many books.

Indeed.
So you are going by the teachings of the “earliest Christians”–that, again, is a testament to your belief in Sacred Tradition.

I have no problem with tradition – when it does not contradict Scripture, although, it is not “sacred”. The point is that Christians, without the aid of an “infallible” authority, received the inspired letters.

As I understand it, the Odes composition is believed to have originated in the 2nd or 3rd century so I’m not sure why you’d think anyone would even suggest the book might be inspired.

As the Bible was not compiled until the 4th century, why does that discount anything written in the 2nd and 3rd centuries? Who decides what’s the latest date that a Christian text can be considered?

I thought because of the book’s title it was attributed to Solomon which is not possible if it originated in 3rd century.

We know that if a book is written by an Apostle then it automatically merits inclusion in the canon. And because Mark is a close associate of both Peter and Paul (Acts 13:5; Col 4:10; 2 Tim 4:11; Phle 24; 1 Pet 5:13), his book would almost automatically be included. You know it’s not as if these men were strangers to each other. They formed a network and were in a position to investigate each other’s work.

Fair enough.
And then, kelman, how is it that you know that Hebrews is inspired? Who wrote it?

There are many who think it was written by Paul and I happen to agree. As to “how” we know a text is inspired, I’ve already explained plus in this case if the churches believed it to be written by Paul there would be no question of inspiration.

Perhaps you heard it before, however, I certainly never said anything comparable.

Fair enough. Could you expound then on what you mean by the Scriptures are “self-attesting”?

Modern studies on the intertextuality(self-witness of individual books to their own authorship) of Scripture increasingly document the internal unity of Scripture. And, of course, the unity of Scripture figures in the canonicity of Scripture, as an interconnected set of books.

One scholar defines “intertextuality” as:
” Intertextuality is the study of links between and among texts. Many written texts, especially biblical ones, were written with full awareness of other texts in mind. Their authors assumed the readers would be thoroughly knowledgeable of those other texts. The New Testament books, for example, assume a comprehensive understanding of the OT. Many OT texts also assume their readers are aware and knowledgeable of other OT texts.” J. Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach (Zondervan 1995), 212-13

 

[kelman]

Your church did not claim to infallibly define the canon of Scripture before Trent.

No, it’s very much related. Part and parcel of your argument is that without an “infallible” authority to discern Scripture it is not possible to know the canon of the Bible. And yet, we know this argument is faulty because Christians knew their Bible well before Trent which is the first time your church “infallibly” defined Scripture for itself.

First we must affirm that you only know what’s Scripture because some other entity discerned this for you. Here, you can say “the early Christians” if you do not wish to say “the Catholic Church”.

Why would I say that the RCC discerned Scripture?..it did not exist at the time. I have no problem accepting certain traditions - but not the RCC’s traditions.

At any rate, that makes you not Sola Scriptura.

I’m afraid you are still unclear as to what sola Scriptura actually is. One can hardly be expected to be sola Scriptura if one does not have a Bible. Sola Scriptura presupposes the existence of the inspired Scriptures.

From there we affirm that this entity (the early Christians or the CC) was infallible…unless you wish to disclose where this entity erred in discerning the canon. Did they err in including Philemon and excluding the Odes? If they didn’t err, then they were, by definition, infallible, yes?

An amazing conclusion, even if incorrect. Not making a mistake in a particular endeavor hardly qualifies as being infallible.

Both Roman Catholics and Protestants had no trouble knowing their Bible for the fifteen hundred years prior to Trent.

Actually, as there was no Bible for 400 years, you ought to say “1100 years”.

Nevertheless, the fact is that Christians never needed an infallible authority to tell them their Bible. Therefore, that particular argument(infallible authority) is seen to be without merit - at least concerning the canon of Scripture.

So, obviously there was no need for an infallible church to declare a canon.

Again, if the emphasis is on “infallible”, we can talk about that.
But right now we’re commenting on the fact that you did indeed need someone else to declare a canon. Again, if you want to say “the early Christians”, that’s fine with me.
Whatever group you want to give credit to, it still makes you not Sola Scriptura.

Your argument is based upon your belief that your church is the infallible authority which discerned the canon of Scripture. Therefore, it’s relevant to this discussion. You continue to labor under a misconception of sola Scriptura. As I mentioned, it presupposes the Bible.

 

[kelman]

In any event, neither does it say anything about the RCC having the authority to determine Scripture. If Scripture is indeed the breathed-out word of the true and living God, then what greater, higher, more reliable authority can be appealed to than God Himself?

The point you’re missing is that it is God’s Word which attests to itself and this is not at the suffrage of any individual or group of people. Only God can identify His own word. Thus God’s word must attest to itself - must witness to its own divine character and origin. The churches “received” the inspired words of God written by the Apostles and other penman. Remember, ** “My sheep hear My voice, and they follow Me”** (John 10:27).

Obviously, the Odes were not written by Solomon so I guess that would be their first clue. As for Philemon, the fact that Paul immediately identifies himself as the author would be reason enough for 1st century Christians to receive this book as inspired Scripture.

Is it enough for an author to say that he’s writing Scripture to make it so?
What, then, of Mohammed? Does his claim to be inspired make the Koran inspired?

Again, you forget that Paul’s letters were circulated while he and the other Apostles yet lived. They were a tight-knit community with known writers addressing an immediate audience so this accounts for the quick acceptance of many books.

We can readily see that Mohammed’s book is not inspired, regardless of his claims, because it does not agree with NT texts. Besides, I don’t think it made the rounds of the early churches.

 

[PRmerger]

God?

Yep.

And then did He deliver the news about what’s inspired and what’s not via a dove from heaven? Or did He use people, Catholic people, Catholic bishops to be specific, to reveal to us what was inspired and what was not?

The answer: “God did it!” is akin to saying, when asked where babies come from, “God did it!”. While it is true and ought to be proclaimed to the world that babies come from God, it is also true that people make babies. God uses human beings to create babies and doesn’t use a stork to bring them to a mother’s cradle.

 

[PRmerger]

Except, of course, there was no tradition for the earliest of Christians to depend upon as they received inspired Scripture as such.

You seem to be confusing “tradition” here with “custom”. Tradition, as the Church defines it, and in the context of our discourse here, has nothing to do with custom.

However, you’re quite correct that the Holy Spirit aids His people in the receiving of inspired Scripture.

Now, this (above), kelman, is the correct definition of Tradition!

I’m sure he was aided by the Holy Spirit, although, no doubt he was simply going by the books already received by the churches since there were no church councils concerning the canon as of that date.

Indeed. Tradition: “that which is received by the Holy Spirit” that is part of God’s revelation.

Athanasius included the present canon in his Festal Letter of 367AD
bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html

Very good. Thank you.

I have no problem with tradition – when it does not contradict Scripture, although, it is not “sacred”.

What part of Tradition do you believe contradicts Scripture?

The point is that Christians, without the aid of an “infallible” authority, received the inspired letters.

If the “early Christians” weren’t infallible, where do you believe they erred? Do you believe that Revelation ought to be dismissed? Or do you believe they erred in excluding the Shepherd of Hermas?

I thought because of the book’s title it was attributed to Solomon which is not possible if it originated in 3rd century

.

Again, my question, kelman: who decides whether a Christian text is too late to be considered as inspired? Is 50 years post resurrection the limit? Or 100? or 200? Who discerns this, and based on what?

There are many who think it was written by Paul and I happen to agree.

Please cite the verse that says this. Book, chapter and verse, please.

Otherwise, this is clearly a man-made tradition.

As to “how” we know a text is inspired, I’ve already explained plus in this case if the churches believed it to be written by Paul there would be no question of inspiration.

And yet you have nothing in Scripture that says that Paul wrote Hebrews, but you consider it inspired?

Modern studies on the intertextuality(self-witness of individual books to their own authorship) of Scripture increasingly document the internal unity of Scripture. And, of course, the unity of Scripture figures in the canonicity of Scripture, as an interconnected set of books.

One scholar defines “intertextuality” as:
” Intertextuality is the study of links between and among texts. Many written texts, especially biblical ones, were written with full awareness of other texts in mind. Their authors assumed the readers would be thoroughly knowledgeable of those other texts. The New Testament books, for example, assume a comprehensive understanding of the OT. Many OT texts also assume their readers are aware and knowledgeable of other OT texts.” J. Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach (Zondervan 1995), 212-13

Fair enough.

Now please share how this applies to discerning that the Didache is not inspired.

 

[PRmerger]

No, it’s very much related. Part and parcel of your argument is that without an “infallible” authority to discern Scripture it is not possible to know the canon of the Bible.

Again, if you could share where you think the “early Christians” erred. Otherwise, if they were correct in discerning this canon, they were infallible, yes?

And yet, we know this argument is faulty because Christians knew their Bible well before Trent which is the first time your church “infallibly” defined Scripture for itself.

You are under the misapprehension that before the Church defines something as “infallible” that it is was not proclaimed as true.

Then are you saying that until the Church defined, infallibly, the dogma of the Trinity that it was not believed or proclaimed?

 

[PRmerger]

Why would I say that the RCC discerned Scripture?..it did not exist at the time.

The Catholic Church is not the RCC, kelman. The Roman rite is only 1 of 23 rites that are all in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

At any rate, the early church was a church that had bishops and held councils and declared doctrines. That sounds more like my Church structure than yours.

I have no problem accepting certain traditions - but not the RCC’s traditions.

Why not the CC’s traditions? What about the Catholic Church is so objectionable?

I’m afraid you are still unclear as to what sola Scriptura actually is. One can hardly be expected to be sola Scriptura if one does not have a Bible. Sola Scriptura presupposes the existence of the inspired Scriptures.

Then, it its presupposition it is presupposing an acknowledgement of Sacred Tradition.

For it was only through God’s revealing His Word through the discernment of these “early Christian” bishops, guided by the Holy Spirit, that you know that Hebrews et al is inspired.

An amazing conclusion, even if incorrect. Not making a mistake in a particular endeavor hardly qualifies as being infallible.

And what is it that you think the Church means when she uses the term “infallible”?

 

[PRmerger]

The point you’re missing is that it is God’s Word which attests to itself

Indeed. Except that you have no idea what’s God’s Word except for someone else telling you so.

Let’s take the epistle of Jude as another example. Its author was not an apostle. Why do you believe it’s theopneustos? What about it is “self-attesting”?

Only God can identify His own word.

Of course.

Thus God’s word must attest to itself - must witness to its own divine character and origin.

And yet the Koran testifies to its own divine character and origin. Something saying “I am inspired” does not make it so, kelman.

The churches “received” the inspired words of God written by the Apostles and other penman. Remember, ** “My sheep hear My voice, and they follow Me”** (John 10:27).

Indeed.

Again, you forget that Paul’s letters were circulated while he and the other Apostles yet lived. They were a tight-knit community with known writers addressing an immediate audience so this accounts for the quick acceptance of many books.

Along with lots of other Christian writings. Like the Shepherd of Hermas. And the Didache. So, clearly, being “circulated” does not make it inspired, right?

We can readily see that Mohammed’s book is not inspired, regardless of his claims, because it does not agree with NT texts. Besides, I don’t think it made the rounds of the early churches.

Islam claims that its holy book is inspired, because it says it is.

That’s your argument for the Bible. (Although you also acknowledge that it is due to the testimony of the “early church” that you know what’s inspired, i.e. through Tradition).

So why is the Koran any less inspired than the Bible, based on your argument? It testifies to itself (not necessarily to Christianity) but it is indeed “self-attesting.”

 

[kelman]

Let’s say the bishop/elder of a church read this:
He said to them, “It is like a mustard seed, the smallest of all seeds. But when it falls on tilled soil, it produces a large plant and becomes shelter for birds of the sky.”
So if an elder of the church read that book, the Gospel of Thomas, in the first century what would be non-self-attesting about it?

It’s apparent that the author of the Gospel of Thomas lifted that verse more specifically from the Book of Mark.

Mark 4:31-32 ** It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: [32] But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it…**

Incidentally, as that verse is also quoted in Luke, wouldn’t that be an example of this Protestant paradigm I also often hear, “Scripture must be confirmed by another verse” (or something like that)–and thus one would believe that the Gospel of Thomas is inspired because it is affirmed by the Gospel of Luke, which is theopneustos?

Paul quotes from the work of a secular philosopher so does that make the philosopher’s book “inspired”?

 

[kelman]

Again, because the verse is found in an inspired book of the Bible.

No, the belief that the Bible is inspired isn’t a circular argument, it isn’t any argument - it’s a proclamation. The Bible proclaims the truth, and it can be believed or not. The Bible says it is inspired for a reason – that we might believe it. Nevertheless, if you insist it is “circular”, then the same circularity is found within your “spiral argument” theory.

The reason that the Bible makes statements is so that they will be believed, as can be seen from the following example:

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

I’ve already explained why the Book of Hebrews is considered inspired, therefore, a verse within that book would be inspired.

Speaking of “circular arguments” - “The Church is infallible, because the Scriptures testify that she is so, and the Scriptures testify this because the Church infallibly declares that such is their meaning.”

Actually, it is a spiral argument, kelman. Not a circular one.
"We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument.
On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.
From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.
And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired.

Somewhat cumbersome if not outright illogical. Rather than simply accepting the Bible as the inspired Word of God based on one singular use of private judgment, this “spiral argument” theory requires the use of private judgment over and over and over. Instead of one circle you have many. How does he know the Bible is historically accurate?..private judgment. Ditto throughout the entire premise – repeated use of private judgment. If private judgment is inherently untrustworthy, RCC’s “spiral argument” position is actually worse off than the “Protestant” position.

 

[kelman]

Please cite the exact quote, so it can be read in context.

And a Muslim can be saved by his good works? LOL! I’d like to see that in Lumen Gentium!

Chapter ll section 16

“Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.”

We have assurance that only Scripture is inspired because God says this only about His written Word.

Indeed. But you only have the Catholic Church’s assurance as to what constitutes Scripture.

You would not know that Hebrews is inspired, except that the CC told you so.

Your argument has been thoroughly debunked because your church didn't even exist at that time. So, for the last time your church didn't exist and it doesn't tell me anything. As has been proven, the people of God knew their Bible without any "infallible" authority declaring it.

 

[Contarini]

It’s apparent that the author of the Gospel of Thomas lifted that verse more specifically from the Book of Mark.

Mark 4:31-32 ** It is like a grain of mustard seed**, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: [32] But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it…

That’s possible. But you don’t know this. It may be that Thomas records apostolic tradition independently. There’s no way to be sure.

Paul quotes from the work of a secular philosopher so does that make the philosopher’s book “inspired”?

No.

The point is that you can claim that any text is “self-attesting.” It’s a claim that adds absolutely nothing to an argument–it simply means “I find it convincing.” Which is fine. I do not agree with the pseudo-epistemological approach taken by many RC apologists. I agree with William Abraham that epistemological criteria are not the same things as canons of faith.

However, a church is not made up of “I” but of “we.” And the question is: why do you identify yourself with the “we” who found the New Testament to be convincing? If you identify yourself with that “we” in one respect–accepting the NT–why not in other respects as well?

And at what point did the “we” become “they”?

You assert very boldly that the “RCC” did not exist in the early Church, and certainly in many ways that’s true–in other words, the early Church looked very different from the modern Roman Communion and from all other modern churches (Western churches have changed a lot more than Eastern churches, but even the Eastern churches have not simply remained the same). However, the break with the past that constitutes the Reformation does create considerable problems for Protestants in claiming to hold Scripture as authoritative. I have yet to see a coherent case made for accepting in toto the historic Catholic canon of the NT while rejecting the authority of the historic Church, in continuity with the early Church, to interpret Scripture. Logically, if one is going to rethink doctrinal positions accepted for centuries (like prayer for the dead) one should rethink the NT canon as well. Luther initially attempted to do so (and of course Protestants did rethink the OT canon to some extent), but the attempt fizzled, in part I think because it was simply too destabilizing.

A specific instance: why does a Protestant accept 2 Peter?

Because it’s apostolic? According to whom? Not most scholars. The best case you can make is that it’s possible that at least part of it was really written by Peter. If you didn’t start with a strong predisposition to include it in the canon it would be pretty easy to dismiss it.

You simply can’t separate the canon from the question of the authority of the Church. That doesn’t compel you to accept the authority of Rome. It does compel you to think about canonical questions *together with *other questions involving Christian tradition, rather than artificially splitting them into two boxes labeled “Scripture” and “tradition.”

This has gotten pretty far from the original debate between you and PRMerger, which was itself a digression from the original question.

Back to the inclusivism point: you are simply wrong when you say that there’s no Biblical support for inclusivism. Acts 10 and Romans 1-2 both constitute such support. Acts 1-2 says that Gentiles know God from nature and it speaks of Gentiles who do by nature the things contained in the law. Acts 10 shows that this isn’t simply an empty set, as Calvin argued (disagreeing on this point with Zwingli and at least the early Bucer).

These passages can easily be reconciled with Romans 10 if we accept N. T. Wright’s contention that “salvation” does not simply speak of one’s fate at the last judgment but of being made part of God’s people. There’s no indication in the NT that Cornelius would have gone to hell if he had died before Peter got to him, or even before the angel appeared to him. But if that had happened, he would never have been incorporated into the people of God and become fully part of God’s saving purposes for the world in this life.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

It’s apparent that the author of the Gospel of Thomas lifted that verse more specifically from the Book of Mark.

And how does this tell you that the Gospel of Thomas is not inspired?

And what about that verse or that book is NOT self-attesting?

Paul quotes from the work of a secular philosopher so does that make the philosopher’s book “inspired”?

'zactly! So what criteria do you use to discern–without the authority of the CC–what’s theopneustos?

You state it has to be written by an apostle. Okay.

2 questions are prompted by this criterion:
-where do the Scriptures state that this is a criterion?
-what to do about Hebrews (authorship unknown) and Jude (not an apostle).

 

[PRmerger]

No, the belief that the Bible is inspired isn’t a circular argument, it isn’t any argument - it’s a proclamation. The Bible proclaims the truth, and it can be believed or not.

No doubt.

The question is, of course, how do you know what’s “the Bible”? You believe that the Didache isn’t part of the Bible and Hebrews is.

Why?

Because Hebrews is self-attesting seems to be your answer.

So I’d like to know what things in Hebrews is self attesting, and how this also excludes the Didache, Odes of Solomon, the Gospel of Thomas…

I’ve already explained why the Book of Hebrews is considered inspired, therefore, a verse within that book would be inspired.

Forgive me for being obtuse–but what is your reason for considering Hebrews inspired again?

 

[PRmerger]

Somewhat cumbersome if not outright illogical. Rather than simply accepting the Bible as the inspired Word of God based on one singular use of private judgment,

What does this mean? Is this your criterion for accepting the Bible as the inspired Word of God–your “singular use of private judgement”?

Incidentally, we aren’t even arguing about whether the Bible is the inspired Word of God. On that we are agreed, no?

What we are arguing about is how you know what belongs in the Bible.

Once it gets in there, we can agree that it’s inspired.

I just want to know how you think something got *in *there.

 

[PRmerger]

Chapter ll section 16

"Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience."

Ah. I can see how you could interpret it to mean that Muslims can enter heaven through their works.

But understood in light of the teaching* Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sallus* as a whole we know that they are not saved by their works but only by Jesus. And thus, if anyone is saved without an explicit faith in the man Jesus, they are still saved by the Eternal Logos, the Christ who is “the light that enlightens every man who comes into the world” (John 1:9)

Incidentally, does not Jesus say as much–that we can by seeking God and moved by grace we can achieve salvation by our deeds-- in his parable, “The Good Samaritan”? This parable was given in response to the question, “What must I do to have eternal life”, no?

 

[PRmerger]

Your argument has been thoroughly debunked because your church didn’t even exist at that time. So, for the last time your church didn’t exist and it doesn’t tell me anything. As has been proven, the people of God knew their Bible without any “infallible” authority declaring it.

I think that I’ve already agreed that we don’t have to call it the Catholic Church that discerned for you what belongs in the Bible. If you want to say “the early Christians”, then I’m completely okay with that.

Either way–calling it the Catholic Church, or “the early Christians” (who were bishops, BTW)–you still are submitting to an authority OUTSIDE of the Scripture for something revealed by God.

And that makes you decidedly NOT Sola Scriptura.

 

[PRmerger]

However, the break with the past that constitutes the Reformation does create considerable problems for Protestants in claiming to hold Scripture as authoritative. I have yet to see a coherent case made for accepting in toto the historic Catholic canon of the NT while rejecting the authority of the historic Church, in continuity with the early Church, to interpret Scripture.

Indeed.

Calls to mind a quote I love (which, Edwin, I know you’ve commented on before):

“The original 16th-century revolutionaries had the mysterious conviction that you could attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar – yet inexplicably seize their Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.”