Scott Hahn and "fallible collection of infallible documents"

[Zaccheus]

Zaccheus:

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?

I responded to someone who claimed there was no need for the Church to define the canon because he personally could do so for himself.

Unless we have some infallible source, how do we know what doctrines are certain to be true? That includes knowing what books are really part of the canon. So yes, at least some items of faith do need assurance that they are infallibly true. Why worship Christ at all unless we are certain He is God?

Did the Jews or even the disciples and Jesus go around claiming they had an infallible list of holy books ?

What else is Torah?
And in later generations before Christ there seems to have been disagreement on which books fit the canon, but the Jews definitely had a canon. They held their Scriptures to be infallibly the word of God, which is why they went to such great lengths to copy every word unchanged.

About the first few generations of the disciples-- there was a period when new writings were coming out and there may have been some disagreement as to which ones could be considered Holy Scripture.
They did hold the Old Testament to be inerrant, and at some point (I want to say about the fourth century A.D.) the Church did in fact announce an official canon of Scripture. (With the Book of Revelation being the last book of the canon.)

 

[BohemianBrother]

I would agree with @mcq72 with the consensus part - the early Church was spread far and wide in a time of slow communication and sometimes even persecution. Some form of a consensus rather than a singular authority seems much more likely. Not a “democratic” consensus by which today’s liberal protestants have voted in homosexual marriages as acceptable, but a more “scientific”, historian type of approach. It was the duty of scholars and bishops to preserve the teachings and the traditions given to and by the apostles. We can see the early Church preserved much information about the origins of each of the canonical books in form of extrascriptural tradition. Even when some communities would use false scriptures (taken from the gnostics or elsewhere), there was always a way to rationally disprove it without appealing to some kind of central authority.

Even today we can look at the origins and contents of all the books of the Bible and decide which are to be included in the canon, based upon some reasonable criteria (apostolic origins, teachings, even our own current tradition, etc.). This is exactly what scholars like St. Jerome and the councils were doing. Of course the christian bishops didn’t just sit and proclaim the canon out of thin air, there were disputes and tolerated variances. It is just that we as protestants don’t claim infallibility. Then, fallible search for inerrant scriptures is all we can honestly do. And from our perspective, it is also the best Catholicism can do, regardless of its claims.

Fallibility isn’t an automatic guarantee of error, neither is claiming infallibility an automatic guarantee of actually being infallible. The best Catholicism can do is a fallible claim of infallibility. Either way we won’t be saved through our knowledge (Thank God!), but by the Grace of our Lord, who leads all to truth, in spite of our intellectual failings.

 

[mcq72]

but the Jews definitely had a canon

Precisely. How did they get it? Was it heirarchal or consensus? Was it by decree of a king or a judge? Did they have an ecumenical council ?>

 

[mcq72]

does this fact suggest a powerful hierarchy or consensus?

and did the heirarchy vote on it or reach it by a type of consensus…and when 400 or 1500 years later?.. how did you get a bible by around 350?

 

[Zaccheus]

Zaccheus:

but the Jews definitely had a canon

Precisely. How dod they get it? Was it heirarchal or consensus? Was it by decree of a king or a judge? Did they have an ecumenical council ?

I don’t know, and I’m not concerned about it. The canon I care about is the one shown me by Holy Mother Church.

 

[mcq72]

Either way we won’t be saved through our knowledge (Thank God!),

Thank you for post…found it encouraging…it was almost infallible post lol, except for this sentance above. You sputtered a bit, after making clear points up to then. I know what you mean by the sentence (canon legalism doesn’t save us, nor should it necesarily be article of faith for salvation), yet I think of the verse that says ," My people perish for lack of knowledge"…indeed we must know our Savior in truth (knowledge?) and spirit.

Sorry for being nit picky lol…plus didnt have any more responses to address from Catholics…blessings to all.

 

[BohemianBrother]

It’s alright, I did sputter indeed. I was trying to attack the notion that any knowledge is worthless without infallibility, but I messed it up.

Yes, you’re right, canon legalism simply cannot save us.

Have a peaceful Palm Sunday everyone. Stay safe!

 

[JonNC]

The canon I care about is the one shown me by Holy Mother Church.

I think this is a good attitude to have.

 

[Magnanimity]

Fallibility isn’t an automatic guarantee of error, neither is claiming infallibility an automatic guarantee of actually being infallible. The best Catholicism can do is a fallible claim of infallibility.

Precisely. How did they get it? Was it heirarchal or consensus? Was it by decree of a king or a judge? Did they have an ecumenical council ?

and did the heirarchy vote on it or reach it by a type of consensus…and when 400 or 1500 years later?.. how did you get a bible by around 350?

First, I should say that I’m sympathetic to my non-Catholic/non-EO spiritual siblings. At times, Catholics can surely overstate their case on these issues. But, I think it’s equally clear that Protestants can too.

One the one hand, our Protestant siblings are good at pointing out the highly-questionable sense of infallibility pertaining to my own ability to know anything. When I start to claim that I, individually cannot possibly be wrong in my beliefs about X, I’m getting into murky waters. Not only is it possible (logically and actually) that the Catholic church (or just Christianity, more broadly) is not the fullest religious embodiment of truth, goodness and beauty on the planet, but entire other worldviews could be nearer to the fullness of truth than our own. Obviously, as a Catholic, I don’t believe that atheism or pantheism are nearer to the fullness of truth. And yet, am I epistemically justified in asserting that I infallibly know that Catholic theism exemplifies more truth, goodness and beauty than pantheism? Hardly. So, Catholics do need to slow their roll a bit on their application of the term “infallible.” We use it far too freely (and even of our own epistemic states) so it seems to me.

And yet, we can’t quite give too much space here to our separated brethren either. @mcq72 wants to ask how we got a Bible around 350 (referring to Hippo and Carthage?) It must be noted that this question can validly be asked of anyone. It’s not a particular problem for Catholics. Protestants inherit their NT from the ancient church just as they inherit their Christology from the same church. If a Protestant wants to press the issue too far, then she will certainly find herself open to bizarre positions like, “maybe Arianism is an optional belief for Christians.” With no vehicle for determining orthodoxy (or heresy) then all is a live option. How does the Protestant know that 2nd and 3rd John belong in his NT but the epistle of Barnabas doesn’t? The practical answer is that the early church told him so, just as the early church passed on to Protestants their ‘orthodox’ Christology. The Protestant might say they got their Christology from the Bible. But this just pushes the issue back a step. What Bible? How would you know which books belong there? Arianists claim they got their beliefs from “the Bible” too.

 

[mcq72]

wants to ask how we got a Bible around 350 (referring to Hippo and Carthage?)

No…was not inferring to councils but just the opposite… was referring to the bibles ( Codex Sinaiticus 330 to 350 ad)…possible bibles made for Constantine by Eusebius 325 ish

 

[Magnanimity]

No…was not inferring to councils but just the opposite… was referring to the bibles ( Codex Sinaiticus 330 to 350 ad)…possible bibles made for Constantine by Eisebius 325 ish

And? What does this accomplish for you? That codex included the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Deuterocanonical books? Does your Bible have all this? What would make the Codex Sinaiticus either authoritative or needing of revision?

 

[mcq72]

And? What does this accomplish for you? That codex included the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Deuterocanonical books? Does your Bible have all this? What would make the Codex Sinaiticus either authoritative or needing of revision?

Still relevant because it shows the acceptance of our 27 books before any church council…it also shows that hundreds of other NT writings were already excluded save two…as far as OT, seems like they contained entire Septuagint, of which councils eliminated a few of the books and Protestants eventually a few more.

As to revisions we all made, they were due to textus receptus comparison I suppose.

So, these earlier bibles were put together thru consensus within the church.( not sure if it was regional or not.) The fine tuning consensus that came a bit later required more effort from more church folk, as in a council, where hopefully all regions of church were represented.

 

[Peter_Jericho]

Perhaps the extreme 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.

When you said “the other extreme” I thought you were going to say something about fundamentalism. But however you describe it, the bottom line is that Evangelical Protestants – many of them anyhow – want to have their cake and eat it too: I.e. wanting the ultimate “the buck stops here” with the bible, but then turning around and say that he or she knows which writings belong in the bible and which don’t based on personally experience of hearing God’s voice.

 

[Peter_Jericho]

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

OK but why do you believe that?

Does an item of faith and conviction need to be infallible?

If you talk to Evangelical Protestants, I think you’ll find they are BIG on the idea of the bible being infallible.

 

[Magnanimity]

Still relevant because it shows the acceptance of our 27 books before any church council

If you look up the Wikipedia article on the New Testament Canon, you will see that there were various codices and discrepancies between pretty much all of them. It was not at all clear even at the year 300 that the 27 books were university agreed-upon. But that is a side matter. That is the historical data. No one is asking you to give an historical account. Rather, what is being asked is how is it that you know that the 27 books in your new testament, which was given to you by the pre-existing church, actually belong there? If someone asks you how do you know that the epistle of Barnabas is not inspired scripture, what would be your answer? Or if someone asked you about the third epistle of John, which was highly disputed in the first couple of centuries, does belong, again, what would be your answer?

A Catholic or an Orthodox believes that the Spirit of God is ever guiding his church. So when there are discrepancies and disagreements, and there were quite a few in the first millennium, there is some authority to finally settle matters of disagreement. You seem to want to believe that the ‘correct’ collection of the 27 books of the New Testament just kind of happened, as if it were dumb luck. And, as a protestant, I suppose this is what you have to believe. Furthermore, I guess you would have to believe that the Christological controversies of the first six centuries of the church also got resolved by a bit of dumb luck. Do you happen to accept the Christology of these first councils also by dumb luck? Obviously, such happenstance of stumbling upon the truth stretches credulity to the brink.

 

[Tommy999]

Is it possible that God so wanted His people to have the inspired Word of God that he “graced” those Christian leaders in charge at the time to include those books that He wanted to be in the Bible and exclude those He didn’t?

In other words, just as Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the Holy Scriptures, He did the same to those leaders who were in charge of the Church when the Bible was put together.

For example, my understanding is that the Book of Hebrews does not have a universally known author but that the letter had been so widely circulated and its contents so widely accepted by the ECFs as inspired that it was included in spite of not knowing for sure who authored it.

 

[Magnanimity]

Is it possible that God so wanted His people to have the inspired Word of God that he “graced” those Christian leaders in charge at the time to include those books that He wanted to be in the Bible and exclude those He didn’t?

In other words, just as Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the Holy Scriptures, He did the same to those leaders who were in charge of the Church when the Bible was put together.

More than possible, I would say that this is actually what occurred. In fact, one would have to say such a “gracing” would be necessary for it to have happened at all. In the very long history of the church prior to the Reformation, whenever there were disagreements over very important matters, the church was “graced” to discover the truth and resolve the important controversy. The resolution of the Arian controversy would be such an example of this “gracing,” as would the resolution of the canon of the sacred scriptures.

This is precisely what is meant by the church being the pillar and foundation of the truth. The church, receiving the grace of God, preserves and passes on this revelation to the people of God. This was the normative process of the church’s functioning for its first 1500 years. You today are the benefactor of this process unfolding in history whether or not you’re aware of it and whether or not you accept that bishops acting in council (especially ecumenical council) have a charism of infallibility to resolve such matters.

 

[mcq72]

You seem to want to believe that the ‘correct’ collection of the 27 books of the New Testament just kind of happened, as if it were dumb luck. And, as a protestant, I suppose this is what you have to believe.

Just have a moment here but that would be a straw man…i said church came to a consensus…that could mean a lot of things but not dumb luck, as if any bishop(s) or teacher (s) would do so

 

[lanman87]

As an Evangelical. I believe the New Testament came together by the will of God through the people of God (the church). And that, over time, a consensus among the various local churches was reached as to what is “God breathed”, what was true to the teachings of the apostles, and what was the “voice of God”.

God was the one who determined the canon, the church simply recognized what God had determined. As noted Bible Scholar and Historian F.F. Bruce put it, “When at last a Church Council—the Synod of Carthage in A.D. 397—listed the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, it did not confer upon them any authority which they did not already possess, but simply recorded their previously established canonicity.” F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, Page 111

In other words, the Church council did not establish the canon of the New Testament. It recognized the consensus that had developed in the Church as to what was the Scriptures of the New Testament. They didn’t settle the debates, they recognized the debate about the few disputed books was over.

 

[ArchStanton]

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.

Mt 23:2-3 The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses . Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you , but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.

[OT seat on the chair of Moses, NT seat on the chair of Peter ]