second question for our non-catholic brethern

[Novocastrian]

The charism of infallibility is a negative charism, Novocastrian. The HS prevents the Church from erring in declaring what is true that which is false, and declaring false that which is true.

So, if you believe that the 27 book canon of the NT is without error, then, by necessity, you believe that the Church was exercising the charism of infallibility when she discerned this canon.

No you don’t! I understand how the charism of infallibility is defined. I don’t even need to deny it to refute your argument!

Look. I believe that the battle of Hastings was in 1066. This belief I hold without error. Are we therefore to conclude that my knowledge of the date of the battle of Hastings is infallible? Are we to assume that I literally cannot be wrong? That I could not, in any conceivable world or circumstance have mis-remembered, and thought that it was in 1166? That would be ridiculous. And yet it’s the (il)logical argument you’re making…

 

[PRmerger]

You’re still not understanding. The Church has proper authority to delineate the canon

Indeed. She had the FINAL authority on this, does she not?

As such, you defer to the Church, NOT SCRIPTURE, as your FINAL authority on the canon.

That makes you NOT Sola Scriptura.

 

[PRmerger]

You’d only need Scripture as an ultimate authority if the Church were to try to introduce the wrong books into the canon.

How would that work, exactly?

“The Shepherd of Hermas can’t be part of the canon because…um…it’s not in the Bible!”

That’s just :whacky:

 

[Novocastrian]

Indeed. She had the FINAL authority on this, does she not?

As such, you defer to the Church, NOT SCRIPTURE, as your FINAL authority on the canon.

That makes you NOT Sola Scriptura.

You continue to ignore what I’m saying. You only need to appeal to a final authority if you think there’s something wrong with the previous authority. Not ever case ends up before the supreme court, but even for those which do not the supreme court remains the final authority. Appeal is possible, if it should be needed.

 

[Novocastrian]

How would that work, exactly?

“The Shepherd of Hermas can’t be part of the canon because…um…it’s not in the Bible!”

That’s just :whacky:

That would be crazy, if that were what I had argued…

FYI, I’m aware of why Hermas was rejected. The Muratorian Fragment says that it wasn’t for unorthodox content, but because of its post-apostolic origin. The sola scripture Christian can accept this judgement; it only contradicts sola scriptura if the judgement contradicts scripture!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That would be crazy, if that were what I had argued…

FYI, I’m aware of why Hermas was rejected. The Muratorian Fragment says that it wasn’t for unorthodox content, but because of its post-apostolic origin. The sola scripture Christian can accept this judgement; it only contradicts sola scriptura if the judgement contradicts scripture!

Like sola scriptura itself?

 

[PJM]

=PRmerger;11487169]Excellent.

Then I have no idea how your post segues from mine.

My point: the ONLY way any Christian knows that Hebrews is the inspired Word of God is because he defers to the authority of the CC.

You are agreed, apparently, on this.

So what was your next comment arguing for?

It’s always a good idea to keep that in mind when posting.

Loved your BLOG!

 

[Kliska]

Two things you don’t understand: sola scriptura, and infallibility.

(1) Sola scriptura says that Scripture is the ultimate authority. Not the only authority. E.g., a sola scriptura Christian can legitimately make inferences from history, tradition, logic, etc., about the Christian faith, as long as they accord with (i.e. do not contradict) Scripture. Scripture is the *final *court, the last word.

(2) There is a difference between being infallible and being right! Of course we think that the early church got the 27 book canon of the NT right! But that doesn’t mean we think that they were incapable of being wrong! I am frequently right about x, y or z; that doesn’t mean that it is logically or metaphysically impossible for me to be wrong about x, y or z.

Well put.

 

[eddie_too]

who would have had the authority to tell the early church its selection of the canon of scripture was wrong?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Two things you don’t understand: sola scriptura, and infallibility.

(1) Sola scriptura says that Scripture is the ultimate authority. Not the only authority. E.g., a sola scriptura Christian can legitimately make inferences from history, tradition, logic, etc., about the Christian faith, as long as they accord with (i.e. do not contradict) Scripture. Scripture is the *final *court, the last word.

According to whom, Novo?

 

[SteveVH]

Sola scriptura says that Scripture is the ultimate authority. Not the only authority.

That is like saying that our Constitution is the last authority, rather than the Supreme Court who is the authoritative interpreter of our Constitution.

A book, by its very nature, cannot be an authority for the simple fact that the written word must be interpreted by someone. If the Bible was the final authority then all of us who possess one should never be in disagreement.

 

[Novocastrian]

That is like saying that our Constitution is the last authority, rather than the Supreme Court who is the authoritative interpreter of our Constitution.

A book, by its very nature, cannot be an authority for the simple fact that the written word must be interpreted by someone. If the Bible was the final authority then all of us who possess one should never be in disagreement.

Of course we shouldn’t be in disagreement. But we are. The Papacy fails the same test. If the Pope is the final authority, then we shouldn’t be in disagreement, on your model. And yet we are…

 

[eddie_too]

by whose or what authority can it be determined that the teachings of the RCC are in error?

the RCC claims authority based on the doctrine of “apostolic succession”.

who has the authority to declare the doctrine of “apostolic succession” to be an erroneous doctrine?

do some individuals teach that everyone is their own pope and thus all authority to interpret sacred scripture and to teach correctly the teachings of Jesus Christ resides in the individual?

 

[SteveVH]

Of course we shouldn’t be in disagreement. But we are. The Papacy fails the same test. If the Pope is the final authority, then we shouldn’t be in disagreement, on your model. And yet we are…

Not at all. We all accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God. However, not all accept the authority of the Pope. That’s the difference. A true authority is the one making the correct interpretation of the inerrant word of God. It is self-evident that the Bible is no authority based upon the splintering that has occurred in the Protestant world.

Simply put, there remains division between those who accept the Bible as the final authority.

By contrast, all of us who accept the Pope’s authority are united.

 

[Novocastrian]

Not at all. We all accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God. However, not all accept the authority of the Pope. That’s the difference. A true authority is the one making the correct interpretation of the inerrant word of God. It is self-evident that the Bible is no authority based upon the splintering that has occurred in the Protestant world.

Simply put, there remains division between those who accept the Bible as the final authority.

By contrast, all of us who accept the Pope’s authority are united.

Is that so? The Roman Church is completely free of dissent?

 

[SteveVH]

Is that so? The Roman Church is completely free of dissent?

Do you mean are there people who do not live out their Catholic faith in accordance with the laws and teachings of the Church? Sure there are. But if one wishes to remain truly Catholic they must submit to the authority of the Church, i.e. the pope and magisterium in matters of faith and morals. Those are the rules.

But you are avoiding my point. How is the Bible, which all Christians acknowledge is the word of God, the final authority when we can’t even agree on what it means? The final authority must be an authority who interprets correctly and teaches the truth contained in the book. When one cannot discern the truth contained in the book then how can it be a final authority?

 

[pocohombre]

Can’t forget the 4th sect: the Zealots.
And your comparison to the Pharisees is really lacking as well. Since they arose during the Hasmonean dynasty during the inter-testamental period. If anything, you can compare us with the Levite Priesthood.

If you mean that they were there since the beginning or before the other names I gave, OK. Then I feel the comparison for a Catholic to say all is from Catholicism is for the Levites to say all Judaism is from them.
.

Sources for the record of this un-counciled canon.

Post#1-“1… Hebrew Canon - Council of Jamina/Jabneh 90 A.D. To aid in the rebuilding of Jewish religious life after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. the Jewish Canon was officially stated at this time although the official canon was considered closed in 400 B.C. Several criteria were used in selecting books:”… Post #6-“This is imprecise: we do not know exactly when the council happened. We only have a reference saying that it was ‘at the end of the first century’. A few scholars doubt that there even was any such council, and propose that the ‘decisions’ were the result of gradual accretions of thought. I say this to give you some idea of the accuracy of the rest”… forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=110260 "The Canon of the Old Testament was fixed by the Jewish Anshei K’nesset HaGedolah (Men of the Great Assembly), also known as the Council of Jamina, in the 1st century A.D. Though some books have been given different names, this is the same Old Testament found in Protestant Bibles (except for ordering and naming conventions.) Catholic and Orthodox Old Testaments contain different sets of additional groups referred to as the Apocrypha. Most Old Testaments go back to the earliest Hebrew translations, but the Greek Orthodox church uses the earliest Greek versions’. conservapedia.com/Old_Testament … Take your pick.

Which Hebrew Bible?

The Tanakh or the Written Torah, masoretic text. Don’t think there is much controversy on it. How many Hebrew bibles in Judaism do you think there are?

 

[SteveVH]

(1) Sola scriptura says that Scripture is the ultimate authority.

Consider these words from John Henry Newman (Discussions and Arguments on Various Subjects):

“Surely then, if the revelation and lessons in Scripture are addressed to us personally and practically, the presence among us of a formal judge and standing expositor of its words, is imperative. It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself. Its inspiration does but guaranty its truth, not its interpretation. How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is idiomatic and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs obiter, what is only of temporary and what is of lasting obligation? Such is our natural anticipation, and it is only too exactly justified in the events of the last three centuries, in the many countries where private judgment on the text of Scripture has prevailed. The gift of inspiration requires as its compliment the gift of infallibility.” (Emphasis mine)

I would be interested in your thoughts.

Thanks.

Steve

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If you mean that they were there since the beginning or before the other names I gave, OK. Then I feel the comparison for a Catholic to say all is from Catholicism is for the Levites to say all Judaism is from them.
.

Post#1-“1… Hebrew Canon - Council of Jamina/Jabneh 90 A.D. To aid in the rebuilding of Jewish religious life after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. the Jewish Canon was officially stated at this time although the official canon was considered closed in 400 B.C. Several criteria were used in selecting books:”… Post #6-“This is imprecise: we do not know exactly when the council happened. We only have a reference saying that it was ‘at the end of the first century’. A few scholars doubt that there even was any such council, and propose that the ‘decisions’ were the result of gradual accretions of thought. I say this to give you some idea of the accuracy of the rest”… forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=110260 "The Canon of the Old Testament was fixed by the Jewish Anshei K’nesset HaGedolah (Men of the Great Assembly), also known as the Council of Jamina, in the 1st century A.D. Though some books have been given different names, this is the same Old Testament found in Protestant Bibles (except for ordering and naming conventions.) Catholic and Orthodox Old Testaments contain different sets of additional groups referred to as the Apocrypha. Most Old Testaments go back to the earliest Hebrew translations, but the Greek Orthodox church uses the earliest Greek versions’. conservapedia.com/Old_Testament … Take your pick.
The Tanakh or the Written Torah, masoretic text. Don’t think there is much controversy on it. How many Hebrew bibles in Judaism do you think there are?

There is no evidence of this Council. Perhaps you can provide sources.

 

[Novocastrian]

Do you mean are there people who do not live out their Catholic faith in accordance with the laws and teachings of the Church? Sure there are. But if one wishes to remain truly Catholic they must submit to the authority of the Church, i.e. the pope and magisterium in matters of faith and morals. Those are the rules.

So why can’t the Protestant refute your argument (the Bible, disunity) by saying that, well, there are people who do not live out their faith in accordance with the teachings of Scripture? And that if one wants to remain truly Christian, he must submit to the authority of the Bible, as interpreted by the Church in an hermeneutic of continuity with the Apostles and consonant with Scripture itself.

But you are avoiding my point. How is the Bible, which all Christians acknowledge is the word of God, the final authority when we can’t even agree on what it means? The final authority must be an authority who interprets correctly and teaches the truth contained in the book. When one cannot discern the truth contained in the book then how can it be a final authority?

The Church has interpretative authority, but that authority is bound by the rest of Scripture. You can’t interpret the Gospel of John however you like; it has to cohere in some way with Genesis, Isaiah, Mark and 1 Peter…