K
- Status
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear kelman,
Cordial greetings and a very happy and healthful New Year. Hope all is well. Have been watching the discussion from the wings with great interest and thought that I would clarify my position again, which I believe is in full accord with past and present Catholic dogma.
Catholics would unequivocally affirm that Christ is the Saviour of mankind and that there is no salvation save through Him (Acts 4: 12). A man’s own unaided efforts cannot accomplish his salvation, for a man can hardly be his own redeemer. If any man is saved, therefore, including an adherent of a non-Christian religion, he will owe his salvation to the grace of Christ. However, as regards actual conscious faith in Christ, professed during one’s earthly lifetime, that will only be required of those who have had the Gospel and Christian teaching sufficiently manifested to them. Certainly, one who has had sufficient opportunity to believe in Christ and make a response, is guilty before God if he refuses deliberately to do so, and dies impenitent, rejecting both Christ and His Church. In that case such texts as “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (S. Mk. 16: 16), are very much applicable.
God obliges no one to the impossible, my dear brother. If men are sincere in their mistaken beliefs, try to obey their natural conscience, repent of their failures and sins, God will grant them the necessary interior graces for their salvation - graces, I hasten to add, due only to the merits of Christs saving Passion. The moment after their death they will know that Christ all the while has been their Redeemer, notwithstanding that through no fault of their own, they did not recognize that fact during the course of their earthly sojourn.
God bless and a very Happy New Year to all other contributors to the current thread.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
K
kelman
Guest
No matter how often you ask, my answer won’t change. The fact that someone lifted a verse from Scripture does not make the rest of the book inspired. Just as the philosopher’s book is not inspired when Paul uses a few words from it.
Where do you get that from? Even at the Jerusalem “council” it was the entire church which agreed that the Gentiles did not need to submit to OT Jewish law. No doubt, the same method was used with the apostolic letters as they circulated throughout the churches.
No other way?..well, we could just read it. In it we find that it speaks of a Son of God; but this Son of God is distinguished from Jesus. “That Holy Spirit which was created first of all, God placed in a body, in which it should dwell, in a chosen body, as it pleased him.” Despite the fact that its Christology doesn’t square with that of the other NT books, apparently, it enjoyed popularity. Hermas called the church at Rome to repentance since grave sin was found among its laity and clergy. He allowed for “one” repentance after baptism – that’s it…hmm, wonder what he thought happened if you sinned again?(Simil., viii, 6-10; ix, 19-31). Besides, he seems to tout himself as both seer and prophet having received “new revelations” from God and is thought to be written after the Book of Revelation which alone would make it spurious.
I wish you would take the time to learn what sola Scriptura is especially since you continue to bring it up in the wrong context. As has been repeatedly said to you – sola Scriptura presupposes a Bible.
Agreeing with someone is not submitting to their authority and I can’t believe you think it is. To accept historical facts presented by Athanasius, for example, is not submitting to his authority. Nor am I submitting to Jerome’s authority when I accept his testimony that the Apocrypha is not inspired Scripture.
In light of John 10:16, 27; Psalm 95:7-9; Deut 33:3; John 17:8; 1Thes 2:13, and if one believes that the Scriptures are the voice of the Shepherd, how then can it be denied that the elect will recognize, “hear” and follow it?
Again, that’s not what I said, was it? No need to try to put words into my mouth – trying to change what I’ve said. It’d be a lot more interesting if you’d address what I’ve actually said rather than what you preferred that I said.
Okay, if that’s what you want to believe - that someone who’s never met Jesus or any of His Apostles and lived a hundred years later could be an eyewitness to the Lord’s ministry…
And yet Hebrews doesn’t say this.
Is this a man-made tradition–something you believe that’s not found in the Bible?
I don’t think what I personally believe can be called a “tradition”…but if you think it can…
No, actually knowing “for sure” who the author is isn’t paramount to me.
Again, once it’s in the Bible we are agreed that it’s inspired.
We are discussing how you know how it gets to be “in” there.
Well, right now I’m discussing why you would say “no doubt” when, in fact, you do not accept God’s words themselves as a proclamation or sufficient?
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear kelman,
Hello again.
Protestant belief in the inspiration of Sacred Scripture really boils down to a personal conviction, no matter how devout that conviction may be. However, that is not a very good foundation for receiving God’s holy word as the sole rule of faith. One can fall back, of course, on the notion of the “interior witness of the Holy Spirit” telling one that the bible is God’s word and therefore inspired, but that is surely an exercise in subjectivism that will only hold weight with those who are already fully persuaded. After all, a Muslim will regard the Koran as inspired and a Morman will regard the Book of Mormon as inspired, but that is not really sufficient proof of their inspiration, just proof of their bias.
The Catholic position is not a vicious circle, but rather a legitimate and, indeed, compelling argument of which the ends do not meet.
Let us subject the Gospels as books, for example, to all the laws of historical criticism - the very same laws that we apply to any other regular books. They prove to be reliable historical documents. Now these historical documents inform us of a certain historical Person who declared that He was God, vindicated that claim by works which no mere man could perform and said that He would establish an infallible Church - a Church still visible in the world today.
Thus we prove Christ’s life and works from historical documents and we prove His Divinity from His life and works. We prove the infallibility of the Church from the promise of this divine Person. However, we do not assert that Sacred Scripture is inspired, although we know of course that it is, but our rational grounds for that conviction derive from the fact that the infallible Church of Christ teaches with her authority that the Bible is the inspired word of God as it also teaches what books comprise of the Bible.
Thus, taking the Sacred Scriptures as historical documents only, the Catholic Church proves the historical fact that Christ endowed her with infallibility. Then using that infallibility she throws new light on the historical books by assuring me that they are inspired. I commence with merely historical books, but I finish with inspired historical books. However, please observe, dear friend, that I did not use inspiration as the basis of my first premise. Similarly, I could prove that the present Queen here in the U.K. is the rightful ruler from history only and after that view her under the aspect of her authority, obeying her (or rather her governments) legitamate laws. Thus St. Augustine quite correctly said, even in the fourth century, “I would not accept the Gospels unless the authority of the Catholic Church impelled me”.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear kelman,
Hello again.
It is perfectly true that sin unchecked will lead ultimately to eternal punishment, yet even the Protestant conservative commentator, F.F. Bruce, says that men “will not be condemned for not conforming to a law-code which was not accessible to them. The principle is laid down that men are judged by the light that is available to them, not by the light that is not available” (Romans, Introduction and Commentary, IVP 1974, p. 90, commentary on Rom. 2: 12). Here we have a conservative Protestant scholar, whose Evangelical credentials are unimpeachable, holding a position that is virtually same as that of the Catholic Church. At any rate, his is not the language of a hardline exclusivist with his inflexible approach to the N.T., for it acknowldeges the injustice of holding men accountable for “not conforming to a law-code (and by logical extention, this can surely apply to the Gospel and claims of the Church) which was not accessible to them”. It, my dear brother, all a question of accessibility and inculpable ignorance, for God obliges no man to the impossible.
None of us here would dispute the fact that man is a fallen being, but even fallen men have a “law” within (Rom. 2: 14, 15) and regardless of how utterly hardened it may be in some, yet, it nevertheless witnesses to the goodness of virtue and to the evil of sin and wrongdoing. There is a sort of court, if you please, within in which actions are tried, and in this court their thoughts or reasonings are advocates, taking one side or another. Now it is a fact that some men yield to their good side and to the dictates of conscience; they they have noble aspirations after goodness and stive earnestly to live up to the light that they have thus far received. In our Romans 1 chapter, St. Paul is speaking of “every soul of man that does evil”, not those devout God fearers among the Gentiles who have not given themselves over to work all manner of evil. Not only our belief in the revealed justice of God and the wideness of His mercy, but plain common sense forbids us from failing to differentiate between the two groups of men, whilst at the same time recognizing all men sinners before a holy God. It is manifestly obvious that devout God fearers “…who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely worship God, and, moved by grace, strive to do His will as it is known to them through the dicates of conscience…” (Lumen Gentium), do not deserve “tribulation and anguish” and everlasting destruction in Gehenna.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
C
Contarini
Guest
Prove how? Prove according to whom? How reliable exactly?
I can’t understand how anyone could find this line of argument convincing, given that the vast majority of scholars who have “subjected the Gospels to all the laws of historical criticism” do not share this conclusion. It amounts to arbitrarily choosing to follow the fairly small minority of scholars (all of whom, not coincidentally, turn out to start from a position of faith) who come to the conclusion you want.
This is simply not an intellectually honest approach.
I have no problem saying that I favor conservative scholarship, but I don’t pretend to be establishing the historical reliability of the Gospels in some objective way and thus avoiding a “vicious circle.”
Your position and kelman’s fails in the same way and for the same reasons.
Of course, many of the people who accept the reliability of Scripture deny the third claim, and some even deny the first.
This approach should be laid to rest. It just doesn’t hold up.
Edwin
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, I suppose a parallel could be made in a religious discussion, with, say, a Muslim in which a Christian is providing apologia for the divinity of Christ. The Christian has provided all the reasons for the hope that is in her, and…
the Muslim’s response of “No matter how often you ask, my answer won’t change” speaks to a peculiar obduracy. He is adamantine, and, sadly, will stay at his fundamentalist approach despite the apologia.
No matter. The apologia will benefit the lurkers, and anyone who has intellectual and spiritual integrity.
Exactly. What makes it inspired is that it is in the Bible. That’s your argument and you’re sticking to it.
A
adf417
Guest
When I read kelman’s definitive “door closing” statement I felt it was time to unsubscribe to this thread. His arguments were compelling and interesting to a point but with the unreceptiveness displayed, It seems now he has or had other reasons for this discussion. However I did gain a lot of insight from this discussion.Well, I suppose a parallel could be made in a religious discussion, with, say, a Muslim in which a Christian is providing apologia for the divinity of Christ. The Christian has provided all the reasons for the hope that is in her, and…
the Muslim’s response of “No matter how often you ask, my answer won’t change” speaks to a peculiar obduracy. He is adamantine, and, sadly, will stay at his fundamentalist approach despite the apologia.
No matter. The apologia will benefit the lurkers, and anyone who has intellectual and spiritual integrity.
Exactly. What makes it inspired is that it is in the Bible. That’s your argument and you’re sticking to it.
Thanks all and God Bless.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I had not heard this argued before–that the NT books are disputed as being historically reliable.
Given my lack of scholarship on this issue I will defer to your word that most scholars of ancient near east literature doubt the historical reliability of these books.
However, can you offer us what is in dispute? Surely it is not that a man named Jesus walked the earth. And not that he was crucified, yes?
K
kelman
Guest
Thank you. My wishes for a most blessed New Year for you.
I’m glad you took the opportunity to once again explain your views on inclusvism vs exclusivism. However, I did want to comment on the above where you say that ”God obliges no one to the impossible”. I think we find many cases in Scripture where God does, in fact, oblige man to do the impossible. A command doesn’t always imply ability. God commands us to do more than we’re able to do, because He alone enables us to do what He commands.
For example, God commands us to love our enemies. Still, the command alone doesn’t make us able to love our neighbor. Nor, simply because we are given the command is it reasonable to think we’ve been given any power to do it. We should understand that when God gives these commands they are not statements of what we can do but what we should do.
Was not Israel given over 600 laws and commanded to keep each one? They were expected to learn they couldn’t keep these laws and that salvation couldn’t be achieved by attempting to do so. Just as Ancient Israel looked to the brazen serpent for physical healing so too are we to look only to the Lord Jesus Christ for spiritual healing – salvation.
The Lord often commanded what man could not do of his own ability… “rise and walk”…“love thy enemy”…“Lazarus, come forth”…“repent”. By His miracles, the Lord teaches that just as He commands the physical, so too the spiritual, and that He is the enabler of both.
Man is commanded to believe on the Lord Jesus for salvation. It is no less a miracle when he does than when Lazarus obeyed the command to “come forth”. Neither is possible without the direct intervention of God in that man’s life.
K
kelman
Guest
K
kelman
Guest
Except, I don’t deny that my argument is circular in nature. Besides, not all circular arguments are fallacious. There’s absolutely no reason to dismiss the leading of the Holy Spirit in this matter of faith – the acceptance of Scripture for what God says it is – His inspired words.
K
kelman
Guest
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Edwin,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above response to my post.
When you speak of the “vast majority of scholars” you mean surely the vast majority of liberal scholars who quite naturally approach the Gospels from the standpoint of their own biased philosophical presuppositions. Many of these chaps view the Gospels as nothing more than mere scissors and paste productions, mechanically peiced together from existing traditions and expend much time and energy trying to get behind the fourfold Gospel narrative to discover the “real historical Jesus”. Thus these liberal scholars are by no means as entirely objective as they would have us believe, for they start out from a position of scepticism and, not infrequently, downright unbelief. Therefore their so called “assured results” must be viewed with deep suspicion.
The fact is that the time elapsing between the evangelic events and the writing of the Gospels is, from the standpoint of historical research, satisfactorily short. For in evaluating the trustworthiness of any ancient historical documents, one of the crucial questions is: How soon after the events took place were they actually recorded? As you know, this is a huge topic and deserves thorough treatment in another thread, suffice to say that the historical reliability of the four Gospels has been demonstrated time and again and the unfounded theories of liberal critics debunked time and again.
The evidence for the entire N.T. writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of the classical authors from antiquity, the authenticity of which no man seriously dreams of questioning. Indeed, I would be so bold as to say that if the N.T. were a collection of secular writings, then their authenticity would generally be deemed beyond doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have often been much more willing to trust the N.T. documents than have many liberal theologians, with their basic assumptions. In point of fact there is much more evidence for the N.T., inculding the Gospels, than for other ancient writings of comparable date. As Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make pronouncements on ancient MSS was second to none, once said:
“The interval then between the dates of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the au**thenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established”.
Whilst kelman and myself differ fundamentally over many issues, I do sincerely respect his commitment to and evident love for Sacred Scripture.
Looking at what the Gospels say, what we glean from the extra-biblical documents and what we know of human nature (and what we know of the Divine nature from natural theology), we must surely conclude that Jesus was either what He claimed to be, God, or He was completely insane. However, of one thing we can be sure of is that He was not simply a good man who was not Divine, for no merely good man would ever make the sort of claims that our Lord made.
Even if we regard the Resurrection as a hoax or some “conjuring trick with bones” (David Jenkins), one does not normally find men laying down their lives for a hoax, certainly not one from which their is no hope of any advantage. Thus if we take this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, we must surely acknowledge that Christ did indeed rise from the dead and was therefore God manifest in the flesh - the Word Incarnate. Therefore, with the historical reliabilty of the Gospels and the Resurrection firmly established as irrefutable facts, we can with confidence listen to and believe what the God-Man said.
Jesus said, among other things, that He would establish a Church (not churches) and we see from the N.T. (S. Matt. 16: 18) and other ancient works that He did just that. Moreover, we also observe that that the Church He founded had all the rudiments of what we see in the contemporary Catholic Church - papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, teaching authority and, as a logical corollary of the last, infallibility. Clearly, if the Church that Christ established was to do what He said it would do, and the gates of Hades not prevail against it, then it had to have the note of infallibility - that is surely an ineluctable conclusion.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear kelman,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above.
Actually I would not disagree with your remarks above, for it is always God’s enabling grace that empowers us to be righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and living up to the arduous demands of our most holy religion.
However, I also believe that those devout God-fearers in the non-Christian religions can also be moved by His grace and can “strive to do His will as it it is known to them through the dictates of conscience”, especially when such men are inculpably ignorant of the Gospel and claims of the Church, through no deliberate fault of their own. It is because He understands the disadvantages in which providence has placed them, that he does not demand the impossible without first granting His enabling grace to do good and repent of their failures and sins.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear kelman,
Hello again. Thankyou for the above response.
The word of Scripture emerged from the Church and is the word spoken in the Church and by the Church. In short the bible is the book of the Church and therefore it is her office to interpret it correctly for the people of God. Thus when the Church declares that the bible is inspired and authoritative, the faithful can have absloute certitude and a sure objective basis for their convictions. This is in stark contrast to the wholly subjective notion of the interior witness of the Holy Spirit which is said to inform Protestants that the bible is the word of God. The problem here is that there is no objective standard and so no way of verifying the feeling one way or another, it is purely a matter of something deeply felt within a man. Once this position is embraced it is easy to proceed to the next stage, which is that the Holy Spirit illumines the sacred page and gives the correct interpretation also. However, this is why you have a multiplicity of biblical interpretations among the churches of the Reformation and it ought to give men, even Protestants, a gnawing sense that the Holy Spirit has not being doing His job of leading men into all truth very effectively. Can this really be the sad state of affairs that Christ envisaged for His Church throughout the ages?
Unfortunately, Protestants have very weak grounds for believing in biblical inspiration and have no interpreting authority other than themselves, which is why you have a mulltiplicity of biblical interpretations and a multitude of ecclesial communions, none of which can agree with each other, otherwise they would not be so hoplessly divided.
St. Augustine’s comment is unfortunate only for Protestants since it affirms his reliance upon the authority of the Church and not some subjective internal witness.
No, my dear brother, we Catholics do not engage in any circular reasoning, for we are not establishing biblical inspiration on the infallibility of the Church and the infallibilty of the Church on word of an inspired bible. True, that would indeed be a circular argument. The Catholic position is a genuine spiral argument. First, we argue to the reliablity of the bible as history (see my post to Contarini above). From that we deduce that an infallible Church was established by Christ. Then we take the word of that infallible Church that Sacred Scripture is inspired. It reduces to to the proposition that , without the existence and authority of the Church, we could not know for a certainty that the Bible was inspired. This is precisely what St. Augustine realized when he said, “I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so”.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
J
jmj1984
Guest
This is a fairly common assertion and worthy of some consideration.
The Roman synod in the year 382AD declared the following '**Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.
The order of the old testament books begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave (Joshua) one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Eclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book.
Likewise the order of the Prophets: Isias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias (Zephaniah) one book, Aggeus (Haggai) one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book
Likewise the order of the Histories: Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books
Likewise the writings of the new and eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book.
The epistles of Paul (the apostle) in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the ephesians one, to the thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Phillippians one, to the Collosians one, to Timothy one, to Titus two, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one.
Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book.
Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealot, the Apostle, one epistle
The canon of the new testament ends here’ **
The Council of Carthage in 397 AD decrees:
‘It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John.Thus [it has been decided] that the Church beyond the sea may be consulted regarding the confirmation of that canon; also that it be permitted to read the sufferings of the martyrs when their anniversary days are celebrated’
J
jmj1984
Guest
Pope St Innocent I, in the epistle 'Consulenti tibi’ to Exuperius, Bishop of Tolouse (405 AD) states the following about the Canon of Scripture:
‘**A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the desiderata of which you wished to be informed verbally: of Moses five books, that is, of Gensis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuterenomy, and Josue, of Judges one book, of Kings four books, and also Ruth, of the Prophets sixteen books, of Solomon five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job one book, of Tobias one book, Esther one, Judith one, of the Machabees two, of Esdras two, Paralipomnon two books. Likewise of the New Testament; of the Gospels four books, of Paul the Apostle fourteen epistles, of John three, epistles of Peter two, a epistle of Jude, an epistle of James, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John.
Others however, which were written by a certain Leucius under the name of Matthias, or of James the Less, or under the name of Peter and John (or which were written by Nexocharis and Leonidas the philosophers under the name of Andrew), or under the name of Thomas, and if there are any others, you know that they ought not only to be repudiated, but also condemned’ **
The Council of Trent in the year 1546 states the following on the Canonical Scriptures '**DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES
The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,–keeping this [Page 18] always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.**’
The canons of Scripture are consistent throughout, therefore prima facie it does not appear that the Council of Trent rethought anything.
As St Francis de la Sales says 'It remains for the new preachers to point out those falsehoods of which they accuse these books; which they will in truth never do. But I see them coming, bringing forward the intercession of Saints, prayer for the dead, free will, the honouring of relics and similar points, which are expressly confirmed in the Books of Machabees, in Eclesiasticus and in other books which they pretend to be apocryphal. For God’s sake take care that your judgement does not deceive you. Why, I pray you, do you call false, things which the whole of antiquity has held as articles of faith? Why do you not rather censure your fancies which will not embrace the doctrine of these books, than censure these books which have been received for so long a time because they do not jump with your humor? Because you will not believe what the books teach, you condemn it, why do you not rather condemn your presumption which is incredulous to their teaching?’ (The Catholic Controversy)
‘**A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the desiderata of which you wished to be informed verbally: of Moses five books, that is, of Gensis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuterenomy, and Josue, of Judges one book, of Kings four books, and also Ruth, of the Prophets sixteen books, of Solomon five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job one book, of Tobias one book, Esther one, Judith one, of the Machabees two, of Esdras two, Paralipomnon two books. Likewise of the New Testament; of the Gospels four books, of Paul the Apostle fourteen epistles, of John three, epistles of Peter two, a epistle of Jude, an epistle of James, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John.
Others however, which were written by a certain Leucius under the name of Matthias, or of James the Less, or under the name of Peter and John (or which were written by Nexocharis and Leonidas the philosophers under the name of Andrew), or under the name of Thomas, and if there are any others, you know that they ought not only to be repudiated, but also condemned’ **
The Council of Trent in the year 1546 states the following on the Canonical Scriptures '**DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES
The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,–keeping this [Page 18] always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.**’
The canons of Scripture are consistent throughout, therefore prima facie it does not appear that the Council of Trent rethought anything.
As St Francis de la Sales says 'It remains for the new preachers to point out those falsehoods of which they accuse these books; which they will in truth never do. But I see them coming, bringing forward the intercession of Saints, prayer for the dead, free will, the honouring of relics and similar points, which are expressly confirmed in the Books of Machabees, in Eclesiasticus and in other books which they pretend to be apocryphal. For God’s sake take care that your judgement does not deceive you. Why, I pray you, do you call false, things which the whole of antiquity has held as articles of faith? Why do you not rather censure your fancies which will not embrace the doctrine of these books, than censure these books which have been received for so long a time because they do not jump with your humor? Because you will not believe what the books teach, you condemn it, why do you not rather condemn your presumption which is incredulous to their teaching?’ (The Catholic Controversy)
C
Contarini
Guest
Portrait and PRMerger,
This conversation has gotten off topic so I’m starting a new thread called “The spiral argument” on the Sacred Scripture forum.
Edwin
This conversation has gotten off topic so I’m starting a new thread called “The spiral argument” on the Sacred Scripture forum.
Edwin
K
kelman
Guest
And yet amazingly, it took until the 16th century for the RCC to “infallibly” decide for itself the contents of Scripture. And what happened when it did?..it contradicted many if not most of the ECFs and even some prior councils.
In any case, Scripture was penned by members of the universal church – not the RCC. The church did not “create” Scripture – it is the work of God, it is His creation, He is the author of it. Therefore, no mere mortal can have authority over the mind of God. God alone is the authority on what the original books of the Bible contained and mean, and also on how those things should be understood and applied. It is by God’s authority, power and providence that we have Scripture.
There is no human being who can “infallibly” interpret Scripture. The very thought is absurd when one considers Scripture is the work of God and a human being makes the impossible claim of authority over it? Even if it were true that Scripture is the propriety of the church, which it decidedly is not, it still offers no authority to “infallibly” interpret. If you wish to claim such momentus authority then you best have explicit evidence and without that clear and certain evidence such a claim is seen for what it is – a false assumption.
”Even if the fact assumed was true, viz., that we know the Scriptures to be from God, on the authority of the church’s testimony alone, the conclusion they seek to deduce from it would be absurd. The witness who proves the identity or primogenitor of a prince does not thereby acquire a right to govern the kingdom, or even to interpret the will of the prince.” A.A.Hodge
How do you think the members of the early churches recognized Scripture?..afterall, there was no human “infallible” authority around to tell them. I think we all know that it was in fact the witness of the Holy Spirit which enabled these men and women to recognize His own Word. So why assume the Holy Spirit is unable to perform His work today? Besides, modern studies on the intertextuality 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. So, not only do we depend upon the witness of the Holy Spirit, we also use the ability He gave us to “know” on a purely intellectual basis.
I’m surprised that you deny the ability of the Holy Spirit to illuminate God’s words to His people. Clearly, Scripture is given to the members of the church – not to a hierarchy. The Scriptures are addressed immediately, either to all men indiscriminately, or else to the whole body of believers as such - Deut. 6:4-9; Luke 1:3; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; 4:2; Gal. 1:2; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2; James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 2:12,14; Jude 1:1; Rev. 1:3,4; 2:7. The only exceptions are the epistles to Timothy and Titus.
All believers indiscriminately are commanded to search the Scriptures - 2 Tim. 3:15,17; Acts 17:11; John 5:39. Add to this the overwhelming message of the OT that God’s Word is to light the path of His children.
There is amazing unity in faith and practice especially of those churches which profess and actually seek to practice sola Scriptura. So, I’d say the Holy Spirit has been doing His job just fine. Otoh, what of the two ancient communities who insist they alone are “the” one true church?..they both make claims to apostolic succession and yet they are remarkably far apart in many important doctrines. Seems more than evident that the Holy Spirit did not lead these churches into all truth.
Well, at least we attempt to know God’s will by interpreting scriptural verses whereas I can count on one hand the “official” RCC interpretation of any verse.
Not the first link in RCC’s circular reasoning, although, it is another link in a very long circular chain.
God not only gave us Scripture, He gave us the church and the church He gave us has but one “Head” – none other. God….
"gave him to be the head over all things to the church" (Eph 1:22).
"For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church" (Eph 5:23).
** “he is the head of the body, the church”** (Col 1:18)
Did the Lord inform anyone that there was to be a “second” head to His church? Do you really think some other man can fulfill the husbandly role with his wife while the husband is bodily absent?..most of Christianity doesn’t believe that’s possible.
- Status