Scott Hahn and "fallible collection of infallible documents"

[Peter_Jericho]

Would anyone be interesting is discussing Scott Hahn’s realization (back when he was still Protestant) concerning the bible as a “fallible collection of infallible documents”?

Here’s how he describes his experience in “Rome Sweet Home”:

'Besides, Dr. Gerstner, how can we be sure about the 27 books of the New Testament themselves being the infallible word of God, since fallible Church councils and Popes are the ones who made up the list?’

I will never forget his response.

‘Scott, that simply means that all we can have is a fallible collection of infallible documents.’

I asked, ‘Is that really the best that historic Protestant Christianity can do?’

‘Yes, Scott, all we can do is make probable judgments from historical evidence. We have no infallible authority but Scripture.’

‘But, Dr. Gerstner, how can I be certain that it’s really God’s infallible Word that I am reading when I open up Matthew, or Romans, or Galatians?’

'Like I said, Scott, all we have is a fallible collection of infallible documents.’

Once again, I felt very unsatisfied with his answers, though I knew he was representing the Protestant position faithfully. I sat there pondering what he had said about this, the ultimate issue of authority, and the logical inconsistency of the Protestant position.

 

[Dan_Defender]

I asked, ‘Is that really the best that historic Protestant Christianity can do?’

Love that quote from Scott Hahn. Protestantism is indeed underwhelming.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Scott Hahn is great!
I think this really goes to show the error in Protestantism. How can we know that the collection of books and letters that we call “the Bible” is truly inspired? How can we know we picked the right ones? And who decided?
I remember when I was one of Jehovah’s Witnesses i read in a Watchtower about how the Bible was collected, and they even admitted it was Catholics who compiled and decided which ones were inspired. I remember thinking, “Why should we use the books that Catholics put together if they are all in apostasy?” I remember asking an elder(basically a pastor) in my congregation and he said that Jehovah can still use other religions to accomplish his will. And that really made me question things. Really, everything in Christianity leads back to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. If there is a “great early apostasy”, as cults claim, or even a later apostasy as Protestants imply, then there is no Church and the gates of hell won.
The Bible is proof the Catholic Church is the one true and full Church. Or as I like to say, the fullest expression of Christianity with God’s Holy Spirit completely.

God bless

 

[commenter]

Protestant explanations of the NT canon have to explain away the need for the magisterium. Some are too narrow; we know this NT book is inspired because it meets some criterion. (But what if it meets one criterion but not another? What about books that modern scholars attach a different age or different author to? What about other books that meet some criteria?
Anyway how do we know these criteria are valid?)

Other scholars take a broad approach. We know it’s inspired because we use it, God wouldn’t let us down. (But then Mormons, Muslims and others could say the same about their canons.)

 

[Peter_Jericho]

I came across this quote shortly before starting this thread. (The webpage I got it from is titled “A Response to Scott Hahn’s Rome Sweet Home.” But I won’t link to it because frankly it was pretty disappointing as responses go.)

I do not need an infallible list of infallible books because as a Child of God I can recognize the voice of the good Shepherd in the Scriptures, as Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice, I know them, and they follow me…” (John 10:27).

 

[ATraveller]

Generally:
God uses flawed men. He spoke through them (the prophets).
The Shape of Sola Scripture describes the Reformers recognizing Scripture was a way for the Early Church to preserve the traditions and doctrines closest to the time of Jesus’ ministry.
Ignatius and Polycarp were disciples of the Apostles and listed relevant books according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

[fhansen]

I came across this quote shortly before starting this thread. (The webpage I got it from is titled “A Response to Scott Hahn’s Rome Sweet Home.” But I won’t link to it because frankly it was pretty disappointing as responses go.)

I do not need an infallible list of infallible books because as a Child of God I can recognize the voice of the good Shepherd in the Scriptures, as Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice, I know them, and they follow me…” (John 10:27).

Right, the reader in this case could infallibly recognize the infallibility of the books but he denies that ability to the Church. :crazy_face:

 

[commenter]

Peter_Jericho:

I came across this quote shortly before starting this thread. (The webpage I got it from is titled “A Response to Scott Hahn’s Rome Sweet Home.” But I won’t link to it because frankly it was pretty disappointing as responses go.)

I do not need an infallible list of infallible books because as a Child of God I can recognize the voice of the good Shepherd in the Scriptures, as Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice, I know them, and they follow me…” (John 10:27).

Right, the reader in this case could infallibly recognize the infallibility of the books but he denies that ability to the Church. :crazy_face:

When Protestants use that term Church they mean the collection of all individual believers. When I use that term I mean persons in certain relationship and different roles. The Magisterium, not the Church in general, determined (determines) the NT canon.

The problem with the earlier quote - the feeling of inspiration criterion - is that many people feel inspired by books other than the 27. For that matter, many do not feel inspired by passages in the 27.

I suppose any passage that calls me to change won’t feel very inspiring.

 

[Zaccheus]

I came across this quote shortly before starting this thread. (The webpage I got it from is titled “A Response to Scott Hahn’s Rome Sweet Home.” But I won’t link to it because frankly it was pretty disappointing as responses go.)

I do not need an infallible list of infallible books because as a Child of God I can recognize the voice of the good Shepherd in the Scriptures, as Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice, I know them, and they follow me…” (John 10:27).

So the person who said this counts his own judgement as infallible, at least on this point?

 

[Jimbo]

And there are large portions of the Bible that frankly are dry as bone; because they aren’t inspirational texts but rather exacting lists of laws, or descriptions of organizations.

Using subjective feeling as an indication of Divine inspiration is a dicey affair. What if someone feels inspired by the Quran? And how does a protestant deal with it if they read Maccabbees and are blown away?

 

[JonNC]

And how does a protestant deal with it if they read Maccabbees and are blown away?

I’m Lutheran, so I’ll respond. (Please note that I do not speak for Protestants because that is not really a group, more like a category.
While I wouldn’t say I’m “ blown away”, I will day that I find 1 Macc to be an incredible book. I find all of the dueterocanonical books to be, in varying degrees, valuable and many times beautiful.
That said, I actually use the Prayer of Manasseh (not in the Deuterocanon) in prayer. It is a truly inspiring little book, particularly during Lent.

 

[mcq72]

Scott Hahn is great!

Precisely.Overwhelming. Only God is great.

 

[Jimbo]

Thank you!! I’m honestly very interested in your (name removed by moderator)ut.

I guess what I was responding to was the idea that ‘I feel inspired’ or ‘I feel this is the Word of God’ is the way to know what is inspired canon. I’m not sure if the Lutheran church subscribes to that belief or not.

If a protestant person holds this and then is inspired by the dueterocanon how would that play if they went back to their local Church and told the pastor ‘I think we need to use the dueterocanon because I’m inspired’? It just seems like a bit of a conundrum.

As an aside; can you maybe explain how some Lutheran church’s look very much like a Catholic Church, but some look more spartan, with less liturgy? Is it a high church/low church thing like in Anglicanism or is it more of a separate denomination withing Lutheranism?

 

[JonNC]

I guess what I was responding to was the idea that ‘I feel inspired’ or ‘I feel this is the Word of God’ is the way to know what is inspired canon. I’m not sure if the Lutheran church subscribes to that belief or not.

No, we don’t. That said, Lutheranism does not have a doctrinally defined canon. While a 66 book canon is the norm, the Confessions do not list a doctrine. And the see a couple of locations where 2Macc, as an example, is referred to as scripture.

If a protestant person holds this and then is inspired by the dueterocanon how would that play if they went back to their local Church and told the pastor ‘I think we need to use the dueterocanon because I’m inspired’? It just seems like a bit of a conundrum.

The 1928 Book of Common Prayer, used by some continuing Anglicans, uses them liturgically, and some Lutherans do, as Luther’s translation has them. So, at least for some, it isn’t a conundrum for some.

As an aside; can you maybe explain how some Lutheran church’s look very much like a Catholic Church, but some look more spartan, with less liturgy? Is it a high church/low church thing like in Anglicanism or is it more of a separate denomination withing Lutheranism?

Just my opinion, but American Lutheranism has been influenced by other American traditions. So, you’ll typically find older Lutheran buildings to be more “Catholic”, because Lutheranism is historically Catholic - Evangelical Catholic. More modern American Lutheran parishes are, sadly, more “reformed” in that they have less iconography, stained glass, etc.
As for liturgy, Lutheranism has a variety from the very traditional “high church” to contemporary. The key, in my view, is the inclusion of the important aspects of worship: invocation, confession/Holy Absolution, Service of the Word, Service of the Sacrament.
I prefer traditional worship.

Hope that helps

 

[Jimbo]

It does. Thank you very much!

I will admit a bit of shock, as a kid. When I was young all ‘protestant’ churches were the same; so I wasn’t smart or wise enough to distinguish between the local Lutheran church and the local baptist church. So when I saw a Lutheran church with alter boys, statues, and candles it threw me off.

 

[Peter_Jericho]

Thank to everyone who responded to the quote “I do not need an infallible list of infallible books because as a Child of God I can recognize the voice of the good Shepherd in the Scriptures” – I won’t name each poster individually. I just want to add, on one level there’s a bit (a bit) of honesty in that statement … but ultimately any educated person should respond “Um yeah, so I’m suppose to believe that you would have correctly chosen which books to be in the bible if nobody told you? Please. ”

 

[mcq72]

Thank to everyone who responded to the quote “I do not need an infallible list of infallible books because as a Child of God I can recognize the voice of the good Shepherd in the Scriptures” – I won’t name each poster individually. I just want to add, on one level there’s a bit (a bit) of honesty in that statement … but ultimately any educated person should respond “Um yeah, so I’m suppose to believe that you would have correctly chosen which books to be in the bible if nobody told you? Please. ”

Perhaps the exreme reply that the personal voice of God is all that is needed in discerning God breathed books is meant to offset the other extreme, that only an infallible magisterium via a church council can do so.

I like how some churches have done what the Jews of Jesus time exemplified, or the OT Jews in general. They did not have a big pow wow as to what books to deem inspired, and yet they seemed to have a good enough consensus, and took meticulous care in their preservation. Jesus seemed to be ok with that.

Some of the bickering we do, as apart from respectfully allowing some differences of opinion, seems a bit carnal and one upmanship, like we better than you, even justifying proclaiming one’s better authority.

 

[mcq72]

Protestant explanations of the NT canon have to explain away the need for the magisterium.

Well, not sure the responder to Hahn in opening post did away with any council or pope. Perhaps what you mean is Protestants don’t accept the CC view of her magisterium as the only one, and unconditionally infallible in canon decree.

No one denies that just as scripture is inspired and given by God, so to is the grace to recieve, even understand, preserve, copy, translate said scripture.

No one denies participation of the writers as well as the receivers, from the congregants and their bishops to the sharing of those writings with other churches and their bishops/ presbyters.

I believe first complete bibles were put together before any church council, and were done so by consensus.

 

[mcq72]

So the person who said this counts his own judgement as infallible, at least on this point? ( discerning canon)

Does an item of faith and conviction need to be infallible? Does it need that descriptor? Did the Jews or even the disciples and Jesus go around claiming they had an infallible list of holy books ?

 

[commenter]

I believe first complete bibles were put together before any church council, and were done so by consensus.

I’m thinking about the various religious and secular organizations, groups, committees I have belonged to or observed. Some of them were hierarchical, where a few made the decisions, and others recognized their authority. Others were egalitarian, where decisions were reached (or not reached!) by consensus.

In the first few centuries there were several hundred books circulating that might, by some people, be considered Christian scriptures. You might say now in hindsight that most are obviously not “scriptural” material, but that’s only because you were raised on the familiar, tiny 27 book canon.

In order to reach that tiny canon, an awful lot of books were rejected… likely books favored by some scholars, loved by some local churches.

Now think back to consensus based processes you have observed. Isn’t it more more likely they would have produced a canon with 400 books -maybe more by 2020? There is essentially only one NT canon: does this fact suggest a powerful hierarchy or consensus?

If you want to (as some have) claim the single, (tiny) cannon was imposed by a ruthless dictatorship, enforced by obedient Catholics who went around burning rival manuscripts and killing Gnostic, etc, Christians, I don’t like that but it’s more plausible than the consensus theory.