SS practicing Christian: What do you say Scripture is?

[Abu]

SyCarl #327
There is very little historical evidence outside of Scripture itself that would lead to a conclusion that the Bible is historically reliable.

False.

This Protestant site also recognises the historicity of the Bible:
Can we trust the New Testament as a historical document?
by Matt Slick
**There are many such archaeological verifications of Biblical events and places. Is the Bible trustworthy? **
Absolutely! Remember, no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted the Bible. Therefore, since it has been verified over and over again throughout the centuries, we can continue to trust it as an accurate historical document.
carm.org/can-we-trust-new-testament-historical-document

Another Protestant:
Is the New Testament Text Reliable?
The Verdict
Greg Koukl
Greek scholar D.A. Carson sums up this way: “The purity of text is of such a substantial nature that nothing we believe to be true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants.”[20]

This issue is no longer contested by non-Christian scholars, and for good reason. Simply put, if we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds we’d have to reject every ancient work of antiquity and declare null and void every piece of historical information from written sources prior to the beginning of the second millennium A.D.
str.org/articles/is-the-new-testament-text-reliable#.Vwgv0O9f3x8

That the Church founded was infallible is a personal interpretation of the relevant Scriptures.

False.

That Catholic Church is “founded” by the Son of God who personally commanded:
**“You are Peter and on this rock I will build MY Church." (Mt 16:18)
**“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve]. [My emphasis]

Even further:
Again, to St. Peter alone, in Jn., 21:15-17, He committed the whole flock, saying: “Feed my lambs . . . feed my sheep;” also, in Lk., 22:32: “I have prayed for thee (again in the singular) that thy faith fail not; and do thou . . . confirm my brethren.”

Papal Infallibility was actually defined to counter the errors of Gallicanism.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Chicken and egg test:

Did the Apostles know their writings were Scripture before the Church said those writings were Scripture?

How many Apostles wrote?

 

[jmcrae]

Originally Posted by SyCarl
The Church did not produce the Bible. The Old Testament existed long before the Church.

Originally Posted by SyroMalankara
not in the manner you have as a Christian.​

Do you mean not bound in a single book because that was technically impossible at the time and they had to use multiple scrolls?

Or are you about to tell us when Jesus (THE Christian) and the Apostles (Christians) thought something else when the quoted the HEBREW SCRIPTURES and called then Scriptures?

There was no set canon of the Scriptures at that time and they were not yet recognized as “God-breathed” - that is a Christian idea; not a Jewish idea. (Hence why even from earliest times there are so many different versions of the Old Testament canon, anywhere from five to fifty-eight books. It was not until the Council of Trent in the late 1500s that the canon of the Old Testament was settled and closed at 46 books, and it was not until the mid-1800s that Protestants removed seven of them to create a new and previously unheard-of canon of 39 books. To this day the Jews still use various different canons, depending on the sect and the individual Rabbi.

 

[rcwitness]

The Church did not produce the Bible. The Old Testament existed long before the Church. Even if the Church did produce the Scripture it does not logically follow that the Church is infallible. Paul tells us that the oracles of God were given to the Jews. Using your logic it could be said that the Jews produced the Old Testament, which is without error, and that therefore the Jews must have been without error.

The old testament is not the Bible. It was Scripture for the old covenant, right? The Jews did not have a canon. We have one because revelation has ended with the death of St John. And at that, the Church was given Jesus… to reveal Him to the world!

Ephesians 3

…and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord

Shouldn’t we be seeing Scripture, clear and plainly, Teaching SS? I haven’t seen much Scripture support here.

 

[thecolorsblend]

What I find telling in this discussion is the refusal of our Protestant friends to acknowledge that their accepted canon is predicated on Church (and filtered further by Luther). As there is no known divinely revealed table of contents, at some point in history somebody had to identify, for example, the Gospel of St. Mark as Sacred Scripture and also identify, say, the “gospel” of Thomas as apocryphal. Implicitly our Protestant friends trust and accept that person or that group’s authority to identify Sacred Scripture on the one hand but reject that person or that group’s authority on other matters.

I’ve long viewed Sola Scriptura as a logical dead end as it requires one to recognize the Scriptures as the sole authority, on the one hand, but doesn’t provide an error-proof method for recognizing Sacred Scripture on the other hand. Ironically it requires the adherent to silently assent to some measure of Church Tradition in order to have a more or less complete Scriptural canon.

Adding to the confusion, there really is no clear, unambiguous statement endorsing Sola Scriptura to be found in Sacred Scripture, which is a curious thing given that such a weighty, important doctrine would presumably be codified somewhere in writing, would it not?

Even these might be tolerable had Sola Scriptura provided some measure of corporate and doctrinal unity to its adherents. But clearly that has not been the case.

 

[benhur]

Who is stating this? No Apostolic Church claims new revelation, only the authority to clarify and discern rightly. There is no new revelation

Hi s,

Correct. Thanks for the correction. I did have “new” once and once without

Some think some Marion doctrine is new in the sense that one day some Catholics were told to believe the opposite from the day before. .But understand it is not new but only newly explained as from divine revelation .

The without “new” was for only interpretations of old Writ that are now just as theopneustos… So it is like the Corinthian church saying," we existed before your letter Paul,and are operating under your oral setup, therefore we and our successors are equally God breathed on faith and morals, unconditionally infallible, as your word, oral and writ."

I am sorry, but just can not get myself to think that my magisterium or yours are infallibly as God breathed revelationally as Paul’s oral teaching put to Writ, nor do we need to be. But we do seek to be under His guidance to be inerrant in dividing His Word.

Blessings

 

[Abu]

benhur #345
I am sorry, but just can not get myself to think that my magisterium or yours are infallibly as God breathed revelationally as Paul’s oral teaching put to Writ, nor do we need to be.

As Christ instituted His Magisterium constitutionally, in His Church with His mandate, who authorised and guaranteed the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God, it is self-will that needs to be subordinated to reality and Truth.

Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
PETER. The first Pope and leader of the Apostles. His original name was Simon, but Jesus gave him the name “Peter,” which is Greek, or “Cephas,” which is the Aramaic equivalent. “Peter” and “Cephas” mean “the rock” (John 1:42). Such a name was appropriate to the strong character of the man, but the name became a supremely significant metaphor when Christ later made the dramatic assignment. “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matthew 16:18). What made the name distinctive as well was that neither “Peter” nor “Cephas” was ever used as a man’s name. It was a career designation. There could be no question about the recognition of Peter’s leadership. His name always appeared first in the listing of the Apostles (Mark 3:16). He and his brother were the first chosen. His name appears in the Gospels oftener than that of any other Apostle (Luke 5:10). He acted as their spokesman and whenever Jesus questioned them Peter responded in their behalf. He was present at the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-8). He was with Jesus when he raised Jairus’ daughter (Luke 8:51). He was in Gethsemane during the Lord’s agony (Mark 14:33). Jesus paid the temple tax for himself and Peter (Matthew 17:24-27). When Jesus disappeared from Capernaum, it was Peter who led the disciples in pursuit (Mark 1:36). It was Peter who objected to the washing of the feet (John 13:6-9). The angel in announcing the Resurrection said, “Go and tell the disciples and Peter” (Mark 16:7). Other instances from all four Gospels could be cited that make it clear that Peter’s leadership was uncontested. After the Crucifixion it was Peter who directed the meeting to select a successor to Judas (Acts 1:15-26). When Paul and Barnabas attended the first council in Jerusalem, Peter presided and made the speech that silenced discussion (Acts 15:6-12). Through the early chapters of Acts he continues to exercise the leadership role. He was truly obeying the Master’s valedictory injunction to “feed my lambs” and feed my sheep" (John 21:16-17). Peter revealed human shortcomings as well as strengths. He was rebuked by Jesus for misinterpreting the Messianic mission (Mark 8:33). His impetuosity was revealed in the garden when he attacked Malchus (John 18:10). He was bitterly ashamed of the cowardice he revealed in denying Jesus in the courtyard (Luke 22:54-62). But none of these human actions reduce the significance of the assignment he received when Jesus said, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19). (Etym. Greek petros, masc. name formed from the fem. noun petra, rock.)
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

 

[alwayswill]

Who tells you, the Palestinian Jews, Ethiopian Jews, Babylonian Jews, the Samaritan Jews, Essene Jews, Jewish Christians, Karaite Jews, God directly, King James?

are you really asking when Genesis was written?

 

[alwayswill]

How many Apostles wrote?

I guess you forgot to answer my question before you asked yours:

I asked:

Did the Apostles know their writings were Scripture before the Church said those writings were Scripture?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

The Vulgate also contained Jerome’s preface to the Books of Samuel and Kings which states that what are called the Deuterocanonical books were not part of the canon. Many in the Church continued to hold Jerome’s view even after the local council’s tried to define the canon. This continued right up to Cardinal Cajetan who said it was necessary to defer to the judgement of Jerome.

Jerome had his view, verbalized it and was overruled by the Pope. Then he did as ordered and those 73 books became canon. His view eventually changed. The one’s disputing anything were mainly the Eastern Churches,(now referred to as Orthodox) who, to this very day, have no universally approved formal canon. So that’s the fruit of failing to submit to Church authority. Theological confusion.

According to fathers such as Chrysostom and Augustine, the binding and loosing referred to in Matthew 18:17-18. Was by the individual aggrieved Chrysostom quite clearly states it was not by the leaders of the Church.

John Chrysostom (Homilies on Matthew, Homily 60)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LVII.html

Agreed.

Thanks, I need to read over this further and comment on it later. I’m not a fan of this particular Church father as he is someone leaned upon so heavily by the Eastern Orthodox churches as he seems to hold their somewhat rebellious views.

Yes that is what I am saying. Augustine and Chrysostom also say the same even though they recognized oral tradition.

Ok great, so where is that at in the bible? The chart or table listing essential and differentiating from non-essential?

Pax

 

[SyCarl]

Jerome had his view, verbalized it and was overruled by the Pope. Then he did as ordered and those 73 books became canon. His view eventually changed. The one’s disputing anything were mainly the Eastern Churches,(now referred to as Orthodox) who, to this very day, have no universally approved formal canon. So that’s the fruit of failing to submit to Church authority. Theological confusion

Pax

It is not just the Eastern Churches. Despite his anti-Catholic view, William Webster has posted a great deal of material on the view of the old Testament canon from Jerome to the Reformation.
christiantruth.com/articles/Apocrypha3.html

Much of actual quotes are in the end notes to the material.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I guess you forgot to answer my question before you asked yours:

I asked:

Did the Apostles know their writings were Scripture before the Church said those writings were Scripture?

The writings attributed to the Apostles were often times compiled by their disciples in their name. Other than some of the Epistles of St. Paul, the Apocalypse, the Epistles of Peter, Gospels of Matthew and John, Epistles of Jude and James, the rest of the Holy Bible were later compositions based on the oral teachings of the Apostles and the lived faith of the Church. Did the Apostles know that their writing was inspired? Yes. That it would later be compiled, collected, and bound in a certain manner and order by the later Church - no.

“And we know that the eunuch who was reading Isaiah the prophet, and did not understand what he read, was not sent by the Apostle to an angel, nor was it an angel who explained to him what he did not understand, nor was he inwardly illuminated by the grace of God without the interposition of man; on the contrary, at the suggestion of God, Philip, who did understand the prophet, came to him, and sat with him, and in human words, and with a human tongue, opened to him the Scriptures.” - St. Augustine of Hippo,On Christian Doctrine, 4th century A.D.)

 

[SyroMalankara]

It is not just the Eastern Churches. Despite his anti-Catholic view, William Webster has posted a great deal of material on the view of the old Testament canon from Jerome to the Reformation.
christiantruth.com/articles/Apocrypha3.html

Much of actual quotes are in the end notes to the material.

The fact is that the Canon never matter much to the Church, until some heretic challenged the Church teaching. Even today in Ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox Churches, the Canon never comes up as an issue of disagreement. In addition, the Eastern Catholic Churches hold as normative the same books of Scripture as their Orthodox counterparts. The fact is, the Canon only comes up when some Protestant sect refuses to submit to sound doctrine citing the Bible in opposition to the Church, instead of along side it as complementary.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The without “new” was for only interpretations of old Writ that are now just as theopneustos… So it is like the Corinthian church saying," we existed before your letter Paul,and are operating under your oral setup, therefore we and our successors are equally God breathed on faith and morals, unconditionally infallible, as your word, oral and writ."

not quite, since St. Paul would have been their Spiritual father. No church today, would say that to their bishop, let along the immediate founder. Besides, the Church infallible is the function of the Church Catholic not a particular local Church.

 

[SyCarl]

“And we know that the eunuch who was reading Isaiah the prophet, and did not understand what he read, was not sent by the Apostle to an angel, nor was it an angel who explained to him what he did not understand, nor was he inwardly illuminated by the grace of God without the interposition of man; on the contrary, at the suggestion of God, Philip, who did understand the prophet, came to him, and sat with him, and in human words, and with a human tongue, opened to him the Scriptures.” - St. Augustine of Hippo,On Christian Doctrine, 4th century A.D.)

Could you please show where you got that quote from Augustine? I have read On Christian Doctrine and don’t remember it. I just did a search of the document at New Advent and can’t find it.

newadvent.org/fathers/1202.htm

 

[SyCarl]

The writings attributed to the Apostles were often times compiled by their disciples in their name. Other than some of the Epistles of St. Paul, the Apocalypse, the Epistles of Peter, Gospels of Matthew and John, Epistles of Jude and James, the rest of the Holy Bible were later compositions based on the oral teachings of the Apostles and the lived faith of the Church. Did the Apostles know that their writing was inspired? Yes. That it would later be compiled, collected, and bound in a certain manner and order by the later Church - no.

“And we know that the eunuch who was reading Isaiah the prophet, and did not understand what he read, was not sent by the Apostle to an angel, nor was it an angel who explained to him what he did not understand, nor was he inwardly illuminated by the grace of God without the interposition of man; on the contrary, at the suggestion of God, Philip, who did understand the prophet, came to him, and sat with him, and in human words, and with a human tongue, opened to him the Scriptures.” - St. Augustine of Hippo,On Christian Doctrine, 4th century A.D.)

I am sorry, but I did find it. It is the the Preface, not the main body.

 

[SyCarl]

“And we know that the eunuch who was reading Isaiah the prophet, and did not understand what he read, was not sent by the Apostle to an angel, nor was it an angel who explained to him what he did not understand, nor was he inwardly illuminated by the grace of God without the interposition of man; on the contrary, at the suggestion of God, Philip, who did understand the prophet, came to him, and sat with him, and in human words, and with a human tongue, opened to him the Scriptures.” - St. Augustine of Hippo,On Christian Doctrine, 4th century A.D.)

At another place in the same work Augustine writes:

In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them. Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become.* For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life—to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book.* After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages. And in this matter memory counts for a great deal; but if the memory be defective, no rules can supply the want.

On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 9

newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm

 

[benhur]

Followed by others saying the same thing about them, using their methodology. So where does it end?

Hi Sy,
agree to it being an age old debate. Basically one church tradition saying they are correct over a different church tradition. Is the Word of God Writ , or is it equally what a council says, or a papal decree, or what the “church” says ?

The teaching actually elevates Scripture out of being beneath the inspired Sacred Tradition it comes from, up to a level equal to it.

Thank goodness the written Word of God is elevated from beneath Tradition…?

In fact, what you are stating defeats the argument of those that claim they can discern and interpret the Holy Scriptures outside the mind of the Church.

Good, such a thought should be defeated. Perhaps such folks really mean they can rightly divide the Word outside a wrong minded magisterium, that there is also such a competing church/magisterium/tradition.

St. Paul’s Apostolic authority is succeeded in Church authority (in a certain way to individual Bishops, and in another way collegially) not personal authority imparted every baptized individual.

Correct. And the best way to determine if that successive authority is apostolic is adherence to the first understanding of their Writ.

 

[jmcrae]

At another place in the same work Augustine writes:

On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 9

newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm

In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them. Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become. For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life—to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages. And in this matter memory counts for a great deal; but if the memory be defective, no rules can supply the want.

First, no good Catholic would disagree that we ought to know the Scriptures, and know them well. There was a time, even up until recent memory, when priests were required to memorize the entire Bible, and in some countries they still do that. (I’m not sure why they ever stopped.)

Second, there is nothing in this passage to signify that the Scriptures are the only source of good doctrine and morals. Indeed, if Augustine had sincerely thought the Scriptures were the sole authentic source of teaching, he would not have bothered either to write or to preach, and yet he did both, most prolifically. He was a Bishop (he was the Bishop of Hippo, which is one of the locations where the canon of the New Testament was discerned), so one may assume that he thought Bishops have authority to teach in the Church - and he was well aware of who set the canon of the Scriptures, since he was one of them (although he was only a priest at the time).

 

[benhur]

not quite, since St. Paul would have been their Spiritual father. No church today, would say that to their bishop, let along the immediate founder. Besides, the Church infallible is the function of the Church Catholic not a particular local Church.

Hi Sy, Yes understand local , and church as whole , so not an exact fit, but…

Exactly, a spiritual father and His writ , in my opinion, can not be equaled for infallible revelation. The church is to rule in and by that finished revelation.

Blessings