Sacred Scripture: "An fallible collection of infallible books"?

[PerryJ]

Really? I’d be interested in hearing about this - it would be news to a lot of theologians. Unless you mean, “yes an infallible list does exist, but has not been written down” which doesn’t really answer the point.

PerryJ wrote:
“Catholic Bibles were defined well before Trent in several councils. They were infallibly stated at Trent because for the first time parts of the Bible were being rejected. It appears that your statement is misleading.”

Why did some RC bishops and cardinals (Ximenes, Cajetan, Seripando, Madruzzo, etc.) before and during Trent follow Jerome then and not accept the DC’s as canonical in the same sense as the rest of Scripture (edifying, but not to be used for doctrine/matters of faith)? If the canon was fixed 1000 years earlier, how could people remain in good standing with Rome while doubting the DC’s? Do you not realize there were many arguments during Trent’s sessions on the canon? It wasn’t binding until Trent. .

Your thoughts appear to be Protestant in nature. People within the faith question. That does not make them right. People seem to have a sense that the current generation is more enlightened then people from the past. We become more knowledgeable not more enlightened. Each generation has to win the battle against evil on their own. After I die my daughter will have to win the battle for herself and her generation. The Church has always had people not agree with it at different levels. Some heretical, some over minor areas. We have woman that want to be ordained. We have homosexuals that believe we should approve gay marriage. Just because they say something does not make them right. Christ even had people against him did he not. Did not Judas betray him. Would the Church be any different?

Historically almost every Church Father prior to Jerome accepted the full Bible. Jerome, as can be verified historically, made a false assumption that DCs should not belong. Some Church Fathers after this thought that his assumptions were correct. Now here is the good part. The Church did not sway from its beliefs that were held from early Church councils and now the Church has been proved right by archealogical findings. These findings just occurred in the the last 100 years. Amazing how that works isn’t it. The Church held to its belief and has been proved right. Protestant’s have been proved historically wrong and thus their teachings that ignore the 7 books are wrong.

“Infallible list? We have the catechism and canon law? I believe our faith is better defined than any others.”

Yes, but neither of those are infallible, which is what the OP’s (and your) whole argument is focusing on. As Dulles writes in his book on the Magisterium, “The various teachings in the Catechism have no greater authority than they had in the documents from which they are drawn.” If there is no infallible list of infallible teachings of the RCC, then the argument that there must be an infallible list of infallible books seems to lose much of its force.

“Thefact that the Bible nowhere list the books that are inspired is very improtant”

How did Jesus hold the Jews accountable to the OT canon? Was there an infallible declaration by an infallible authority in the OT or intertestamental period? And again, Christianity still flourished for 1500 years before the infallible, binding list was made.

This statement is in error. The first heresy from the Church often limited the number of books they would use and came to different conclusion then the Catholic Church. Other heretical sects in the first couple of hundred years added books to the Bible and came to a different conclusions. Protestant’s that exclude the DCs, again proven historically to be an error, come to a different set of conclusion than Catholics. Protestant followed the same exact path as early heretical groups. They redefined the Bible to fit their theology. Your theology should follow the Bible. It does not. Read about Luther. He changed the Bible to fit his theology. He referred to Jerome’s list because he wanted to change doctrine. If you don’t believe me then read secular sources. Do not read Catholic or Protestant sources. Read and find out the truth. Luther manipulated the Bible to fit his personal theology.

You have no way of knowing which books are inspired or if the individual verses are inspired. Verses have been added and taken out by more people than Luther. The translation you read is based upon personal opinion. Protestant Bible’s are translated intentionally to support false doctrines. Read any scriputal exegesis and you will see that personal interpretation is found in most Bibles. Someone with no authority has created a Bible to make you believe something that isn’t there.

We have the Church, we have the early Church Fathers to verify our teachings. People taught by the Apsotles support our beliefs not yours. We have the Holy Spirit guiding our teachings. No matter how you spell it you have man made teachings from a book that has been manipulated by fallen men to meet their personal needs and fears. Have you read why Luther changed the theology? He joined the Church out of fear of a thunderstorm. His own Father on the first day he was giving Communion as a priest stated that he thought the Devil may have had something do with him joining the Church. Luther then changed the theology of the Church because of his mortifying fear of failing in confession. He believed in witches and that he had been cursed. With all of this fear he reads Romans 1:17 backwards and came to a new theology. He created this new theology out of fear. Nothing else. He changed the Bible to fit his new theology. Read about the man that created SS. I challenge anyone to read a secular source about this man and truly believe he was inspired to change all of Christendom’s beliefs.

 

[The_Dude]

PerryJ,
You can keep obfuscating, but the point is the RC canon was not defined in a binding sense until Trent. Your church did not have an infallible list until Trent. I’m merely holding you to your own rules. So this whole argument of this thread undercuts your position and should not be advanced by RC apologists. You do admit some ECFs followed Jerome which is refreshing, also consider the canons of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the like which vary from yours.

“The translation you read is based upon personal opinion. Protestant Bible’s are translated intentionally to support false doctrines. Read any scriputal exegesis and you will see that personal interpretation is found in most Bibles.”

Is there an infallible translation of the Bible from the RCC? No, there is not, the various RC versions are produced by translation committees just like the rest. And I’m sure you’re aware of the translation errors that have appeared in RC bibles historically. As for exegesis/interpretation, is there an infallible commentary on the Bible from the RCC? Even a list of infallibly interpreted verses? No, there is not.

This has been my point since my first post; when making these points against Protestantism, simply apply the same arguments to your position - if it cuts both ways, it shouldn’t be advanced.

As far as your Luther diatribe, have you read any of his works outside of a quote here and there? Have you read his Small/Large Catechism? Or his hymns or morning/evening prayers? Even Catholic scholars of the past century don’t hold to the outdated caricature you present.

 

[ralphinal]

honestly, a better discussion is why Luther wanted NT books out. Those had been agreed upon for a longer time.

 

[onenow1]

honestly, a better discussion is why Luther wanted NT books out. Those had been agreed upon for a longer time.

Quote= OneNow1, Also by whose authority did he do these things ?

Martin Luther added the word ‘alone’ to Romans 3:28. He did add to the Words of GOD.

Martin Luther condemned Church tradition as unbiblical (since he could no longer claim it) thereby negating scores of verses. He did take away from the Words of GOD. 2Thess 2:15

Martin Luther declared good works were useless for salvation. He did take away from the Words of GOD. James 2:24-26

Martin Luther wrote a series of pamphlets in which he declared that the Priesthood and the Episcopal Office must be done away with. He did take away from the Word of GOD, which clearly established the Episcopal Office and the Priesthood. Acts 6:5,14:22,20:28, Tit 1:5, James 5:14.​

I find the below a mind boggling statement from him.

“We concede – as we must – that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER’S WORKS, St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961, 304

Opininon = "OneNow1, It appears in his homily, a possibility of trying to put the teachings of the CC back together; but I suppose it was to late already as things were changing rapidly.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[The_Dude]

On the NT canon, if Luther wanted to remove books from the canon, why does his Bible translation from 1534 contain all of them, including the Apocrypha? Why does he preach from James and write, “Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God”? Yes, he makes distinctions, and he does question, but he never removes them. Was he alone in his view of the NT? No, even Cajetan “seemed more than three centuries in advance of his day in questioning the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude, the genuineness of the passage of the three witnesses of (1 John 5:7), etc.” as the Catholic Encyclopedia says, and Erasmus also questioned James.

“Martin Luther condemned Church tradition as unbiblical (since he could no longer claim it) thereby negating scores of verses. He did take away from the Words of GOD. 2Thess 2:15”

Can you document the contents of the tradition referred to in 2Thess 2:15? What traditions was Paul referring to that weren’t included in his writings?

“Martin Luther declared good works were useless for salvation. He did take away from the Words of GOD. James 2:24-26”

No, this is misleading. Salvation includes sanctification, and sanctification is necessary in Lutheran theology, as easily shown in the confessions (bookofconcord.org has them if you’re curious). But perhaps you think concord and augsburg are not faithful to Luther, so here are some of his words:

“Needless to say, when we have put on the robe of the righteousness of Christ we must not forget to put on also the mantle of the imitation of Christ.”

“Now he who does not abstain from sin, but persists in his evil life, must have a different Christ, that of the Antinomians”

"There is no justification without sanctification, no forgiveness without renewal of life, no real faith from which the fruits of new obedience do not grow.”

If you truly want to get an idea of Luther’s view of works, read his exposition of the 10 commandments in the large catechism. As he writes there, “Only occupy yourself with them [the 10C], and try your best, apply all power and ability, and you will find so much to do that you will neither seek nor esteem any other work or holiness.”

 

[PerryJ]

You can keep obfuscating, but the point is the RC canon was not defined in a binding sense until Trent. Your church did not have an infallible list until Trent.

“The translation you read is based upon personal opinion. Protestant Bible’s are translated intentionally to support false doctrines. Read any scriputal exegesis and you will see that personal interpretation is found in most Bibles.”

Is there an infallible translation of the Bible from the RCC? No, there is not, the various RC versions are produced by translation committees just like the rest. And I’m sure you’re aware of the translation errors that have appeared in RC bibles historically.

As far as your Luther diatribe, have you read any of his works outside of a quote here and there? Have you read his Small/Large Catechism? Or his hymns or morning/evening prayers? Even Catholic scholars of the past century don’t hold to the outdated caricature you present.

I am posting facts that are supported by secular historians. I do not post opinions. I have provided sources concerning my post many times. The thoughts are not outdate in anyway and our current thoughts. I have read Luther. I ask have you read about his life from a secular historian. You will see that this man was not a great man. He was a man guided by fear. Fear and faith are opposites. Fear and faith do not exist in the same place. Luther was guided by fear not faith. I can post sources again for all of my statements. It is not a diatribe. It is the truth and whether Protestants like it our not they need to take the time to study the man they follow. I read about the failure of my Church. I accept them and for current issues attempt to correct them. Stop romanticizing a man that changed all of Christendom out of failure.

Your statement about the lists of the books of the Bible is not correct. I can provide Church Father after Church Father that supported them prior to Jerome. The DCs were never in dispute like the NT prior to Jerome. Have you read Jerome’s assertion why they should not be included? This assertion has been proven historically and archeologically wrong. Since Jerome most Church Father’s still supported the DCs. Three councils also defined the Bible to include the DCs. To think the Council of Trent was the first time they were defined is to ignore basic history. It also ignores basic facts. If we did not believe they should be in the Bible why would we add them after Luther added them? This argument is truly nonsense. I can provide sources for all of my assertions. I have done this in the past and can again. I do not base my statements on personal opinion.

Your statement concerning translation misses the point of being Catholic and Christ’s mission on earth. Christ left a teaching authority behind to guide his teachings. As such we do not solely rely on a book that can only be interpreted through the lenses of original sin. One can not understand Gods message by reading a book because ones intellect is impaired by sin. That is why their are so many different Protestant denominations. Each person interprets the Bible differently based upon their sins. That is why Protestant allow divorce. They mis read one verse concerning divorce and ingore tow others. (Do not digress on Catholics and annulment as your refute. The points is that one can not read the Bible and intepret on their own.) That is why Gay people interpret Sodom and Gomorra’s meaning to be hospitality. That is why people that commit abortion do not believe that abortion is murder. To show a point I am making the extreme cases. Although extreme they are not uncommon. For there to be a just and merciful God he has to leave his teachings behind in a pure state. This is the Church guided by him. It is not the flawed thoughts of fallen men reading a book and interpreting it via a flawed intellect. The fall of man is the reason why we have Papal Infallibility. It is not that the Pope is infallible. It is in fact that the Pope does fail and at times in extremely harsh and severe ways. Only God can protect his teachings. We have the teachings from Christ. Protestants have a flawed intellect trying to read and interpret the Bible on their own. A Bible that is not even the original Bible, Christ protects our teachings.

If you have read any history about the Church one would know we do not define until it is in dispute. This has been through Church history. To ignore this is again just revisionist thought to support a misguided idea. We can not know every way the Devil will attack the Church. When he does we then make a pronouncement to define our beliefs. I am sure the Devil will attack us again and will have to make another pronouncement in the coming years. Do you know what it will be? We could then get started on it now.

As I am sure many know, I was a hard line Protestant and stood against Catholicism in every sense. If one reads history and the early Church Fathers one will see Catholicism not Protestantism. The first generations taught by the Apostles were Catholic in every sense of the word. They were crucified, stoned murdered for the teachings that Catholics profess. Not Protestant beliefs. Many of the things taught to Protestants are myths. Myths stated so many times that people believe them. I was one. I even read books that supported these myths. I challenge anyone that believes Luther was a great man to read a secular account about him. Not Protestant or Catholic. Read a secular account. Find out about the man you follow. Do not read Catholic or Protestant excerpts from the Early Church Fathers. Read them in entirety. You will find Catholicism there. I am not posting an unsupported diatribe. Read for yourself. Does not Christ deserve this much effort? I challenge anyone that says they love Christ to read the Early Church Fathers in entirety.

 

[PerryJ]

On the NT canon, if Luther wanted to remove books from the canon, why does his Bible translation from 1534 contain all of them, including the Apocrypha? Why does he preach from James and write, “Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God”? Yes, he makes distinctions, and he does question, but he never removes them. Was he alone in his view of the NT? No, even Cajetan “seemed more than three centuries in advance of his day in questioning the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude, the genuineness of the passage of the three witnesses of (1 John 5:7), etc.” as the Catholic Encyclopedia says, and Erasmus also questioned James.

“Martin Luther condemned Church tradition as unbiblical (since he could no longer claim it) thereby negating scores of verses. He did take away from the Words of GOD. 2Thess 2:15”

Can you document the contents of the tradition referred to in 2Thess 2:15? What traditions was Paul referring to that weren’t included in his writings?

“Martin Luther declared good works were useless for salvation. He did take away from the Words of GOD. James 2:24-26”

No, this is misleading. Salvation includes sanctification, and sanctification is necessary in Lutheran theology, as easily shown in the confessions (bookofconcord.org has them if you’re curious). But perhaps you think concord and augsburg are not faithful to Luther, so here are some of his words:

“Needless to say, when we have put on the robe of the righteousness of Christ we must not forget to put on also the mantle of the imitation of Christ.”

“Now he who does not abstain from sin, but persists in his evil life, must have a different Christ, that of the Antinomians”

"There is no justification without sanctification, no forgiveness without renewal of life, no real faith from which the fruits of new obedience do not grow.”

If you truly want to get an idea of Luther’s view of works, read his exposition of the 10 commandments in the large catechism. As he writes there, “Only occupy yourself with them [the 10C], and try your best, apply all power and ability, and you will find so much to do that you will neither seek nor esteem any other work or holiness.”

Why did he use James after he stated is was not inspired? Because he was making up his theology as he went. He rejected the DCs because he was losing a debate to Johann Eck and had to eliminte Macabees. This is historical fact and not a myth. I can provide secular sources that refer to this act as an act of “desperation”. The Bible was changed to support theology. His theology did not follow the teachings of the Bible. Again a historical fact that can be found in secular history. One sees many reversals in Luther’s thoughts. Why? Because his theology is a man made theology. Read the facts about this man it is very clear.

Your whole theology is based upon him reading Roman’s 1:17 backwards. Read his writings. This is not Catholic myth. This can be found in his own accounts. Read it. Your theology is based upon reading the Bible backwards. Nothing more. do not make it sound better than it is. Do not try to romanticize it with the 95 verse etc. Your theology is based on failure of a scared man. Again I can provide secular sources for all of my posts.

 

[ralphinal]

Luther was not the first to add alone to that verse. It may well be implied in translating. What he did was ignore “works” as meaning “works of the Law.”

Anyway, he hated James, but others convinced him to leave it in.

He did not want Revelation in there. Or Jude, Or two of the three letters of John, or 2 Peter. There is another but it escapes me. Others, however,explained to him that to remove NT books whose status in the Cannon had not been questioned for some time would be a major issue.

FOr discussions sake, why did he want James out if what Luther taught was 100% Biblical?

 

[RNRobert]

He did not want Revelation in there. Or Jude, Or two of the three letters of John, or 2 Peter. There is another but it escapes me.

I think it was the book of Hebrews.

 

[ralphinal]

I think it was the book of Hebrews.

I think you’re right.

So why were they bad?

 

[RNRobert]

I think you’re right.

So why were they bad?

I believe Luther said something about the book of James 'that it didn’t contain the same amount of the Gospel" (i.e. his gospel) Perhaps he felt the same way about the other books.

 

[ralphinal]

I believe Luther said something about the book of James 'that it didn’t contain the same amount of the Gospel" (i.e. his gospel) Perhaps he felt the same way about the other books.

A Lutheran told me that Revelation was too hard for the common man to understand, so it should be gone, but that might have been his position, not the official one.

I would love to hear from a Lutheran on this.

I do know that 3 John was on the edge at times prior to the 4th century.