The Bible is a Catholic Document

[p90]

mercygate:

But even if Paul is quoting what ultimately became canonized as “The Gospel According to Luke” in the “laborer is worthy of his hire” statement, at the time Paul was writing, it was not yet “Scripture.” The canon had not yet been defined.

How then did Athanasius know the extent of the New Testament Scripture before any council, fallible or infallible, met to “define” the canon (Festal Letter 39)?

Scripture is Scripture because it is God-breathed, and its nature as such is not dependent upon human definitions of the extent of the canon. By your standard the Scriptures weren’t inspired until the Council of Trent:
The Catholic Encyclopedia:

During the deliberations of the Council [of Trent] there never was any real question as to the reception of all the traditional Scripture. Neither–and this is remarkable–in the proceedings is there manifest any serious doubt of the canonicity of the disputed writings. In the mind of the Tridentine Fathers they had been virtually canonized, by the same decree of Florence, and the same Fathers felt especially bound by the action of the preceding ecumenical synod.

newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

~Matt

 

[p90]

Steve M:

On a few occations Paul also quotes pagan philosophers.

Paul calls the phrase from Luke’s account “Scripture.”

~Matt

 

[Greg_McPherran]

p90:

Paul calls the phrase from Luke’s account “Scripture.”

Yes, but was he referring to the entire New Testament in 2 Timothy 3:16?

Xavier? Matt?

 

[mercygate]

p90:

How then did Athanasius know the extent of the New Testament Scripture before any council, fallible or infallible, met to “define” the canon (Festal Letter 39)?
~Matt

What was the date on Athanasius’ letter, Matt? We were talking about the letter to Timothy in the first Century, before some of the New Testament was even written. Nobody says that what became recognized in the canon was not inspired until it was recognized. But did Paul say to himself, “Now I am writing Scripture?”

The core question in all of this is how do we know that Scripture is inspired? How do we know what books belong in the Bible. Who wrote the table of contents?

Catholics know why they can be sure Scripture is inspired. And it is not because “the Church says so.”

 

[mercygate]

p90:

How then did Athanasius know the extent of the New Testament Scripture before any council, fallible or infallible, met to “define” the canon (Festal Letter 39)?
~Matt

He didn’t. But it is not that the Gospels/NT Canon were not Scripture; they had not yet been recognized as Scripture. Athanasius was listing books commonly accepted as authentic at the time. We were talking about Timothy.

Athanasius died in 300 years after the Epistle to Timothy was written. Consensus had built. Athanasius was a formidable presence, greatly respected in the Church. The first councils to list the canon were in 393 & 398. Just for perspective, when the Epistle to Timothy was written, it is quite likely that the Gospel of John had not yet been penned.

 

[Xavier]

Greg_McPherran:

Yes, but was he referring to the entire New Testament in 2 Timothy 3:16?

Xavier? Matt?

Since all scripture is inspired 2 Tim 3:16 was refering to both the Old and New Testament at the time Im sure Paul thought he was only refering to the OT.

 

[Xavier]

Greg_McPherran:

The New Testament wasn’t even completely canonized at this time. How is 2 Timothy 3:16 a reference to the New Testament?

2 Timothy 3:15: and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures,

2 Timothy 3:10: You have followed my teaching, way of life, purpose…

2 Timothy 3:13: But wicked people and charlatans will go from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived.

2 Timothy 3:14: But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,

dont you believe that God who inspired 2 Tim 3:16 knew that it would be sacred scripture?

 

[Xavier]

Pax:

Ignatius of Antioch, a first century bishop, who was taught by the apostle John, wrote a series of letters while on his way to Rome to be martyred. In one of his letters, Ignatius refers to the Church as “Catholic,” and the term has been applied to the church founded by Jesus Christ ever since that time. The Catholic Church is not a denomination. It is instead the Christian Church founded by Jesus. There were no other Christians except Catholic Christians until after the Protestant revolt. That is the historical record.

My contention is that your meaning of Catholic and the original intent is different.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hmmm, I think I see where you’re coming from, but the fact remains that the WAY in which Scripture was identified, codified, and taught for the 15 centuries prior to the Reformation was brought about by the Catholic Church.

If we go along with, “God must have known that passage X from book Y would be inspired Scripture”, we also have to acknowledge that God would ALSO have known that the Catholic Church–which HE instituted–would be the vehicle through which inspired Scripture in the form of the Bible, known in its written form for 16 centuries, would be compiled, and IDENTIFIED, with the cooperation of the Holy Spirit.

And, since we also believe that “all scripture is the Word of God”, then we also have to believe that Jesus’s words about His church–that the “gates of hell would not prevail against it”–were true.

The Catholic Church–which we acknowledge was the vehicle which brought forth into WRITTEN form the Bible–was also the ONLY Church during that time.

The books which you acknowledge as “inspired scripture” were revealed by the Holy Spirit to THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

How, then, can this church of Christ’s NO LONGER be His church, and how then can any “denomination” of any particular Protestant church claim that IT is the church of which Jesus spoke in the Scriptures?

You can’t have it both ways. Either the Catholic Church–which gave the world, through its cooperation with and bestowal of the guidance of the Spirit, the Bible–is the church of Christ on which he said “the gates of hell will not prevail against it”. . .or, the Scriptures themselves are WRONG. Because, if the Catholic Church is NOT that church instituted by Christ, then the “gates of hell DID prevail”, and with that scripture passage proved FALSE, the entire Biblical structure collapses. If the Bible was WRONG on THAT passage, it could be wrong anywhere and everywhere. Look around at the various Protestant denominations. Some say “yes, abortion is Ok according to the scriptures” and some say, “no, it’s not OK”. Well, how can scripture stand AGAINST ITSELF? ONE of those claimers MUST be wrong, and one must be RIGHT. But if the Holy Spirit guides us, HE can’t be against himself EITHER. He can’t give ONE group ONE interpretation and ANOTHER group another, can He?

There are just too many little things that have to be “strained out” to allow for any other interpretation than that the Catholic Church is the Church instituted by Christ, IMO. There are too many discrepancies, too many “interpretations”, too much emphasis on a “single aspect”–whether it’s sola scriptura, “faith not works”, tithing, baptism–yea or nay, “real presence vs. fellowship meal”, and “private interpretation” (which you’ll remember was a big no-no according to St. Peter himself)–to make Protestantism (again, this is my OPINION) viable or valid as “Christ’s TRUE Church.” That any given Protestant denomination has at least SOME aspects of true Christianity I do not deny, but only the CATHOLIC Church, IMO, has ALL the aspects of true Christianity.

 

[mercygate]

Xavier:

dont you believe that God who inspired 2 Tim 3:16 knew that it would be sacred scripture?

Xavier, you are putting up a noble effort. But at this point you are still operating from the premise that Scripture is the inspired word of God without having any real reason to believe that your premise is true.

I am not being contentious here. But unless you know WHY Scripture can be held to be the inspired Word of God, and inerrant, you cannot build anything upon it, much less a case for why the word Catholic must have meant something different from what Ignatius of Antioch meant by it. Saying that it is the word of God is not an argument. Believing it is the word of God because “my pastor says so” is not a reason. Believing it is the word of God because the Catholic Church says it is the word of God is not a reason. Believing it is the Word of God because Martin Luther said that Scripture Alone is its own authority is the worst reason of all.

Why do you, Xavier, believe that Scripture is the Word of God? (You don’t need to answer that right here; wer’re all getting dizzy.)

 

[p90]

Greg_McPherran:

Yes, but was he referring to the entire New Testament in 2 Timothy 3:16?

Xavier? Matt?

It refers to whatever Scripture exists at any given time.

~Matt

 

[p90]

mercygate:

He didn’t.

Have you read Festal Letter 39? Athanasius lists all the books of the New Testament with confidence. (Since you asked elsewhere, it was written in 367 C.E.)

Nobody says that what became recognized in the canon was not inspired until it was recognized.

Then I have misunderstood your earlier comment about something becoming “Scripture” after the canon is “defined.” What exactly did you mean?

The core question in all of this is how do we know that Scripture is inspired? How do we know what books belong in the Bible. Who wrote the table of contents?

The question is broad and deep. However, there are sources that provide Protestant answers to this question. If you’re interested, I can suggest a couple.

~Matt

 

[Pax]

Xavier:

My contention is that your meaning of Catholic and the original intent is different.

If that is what you believe, then you need to establish some facts and data to support it. The historical data is against you.

 

[Pax]

p90:

Have you read Festal Letter 39? Athanasius lists all the books of the New Testament with confidence. (Since you asked elsewhere, it was written in 367 C.E.)…

Athanasius could only list the books of the New Testament with confidence because of the Church. No one can by themselves make this determination. Luther tried to redefine it by attempting to remove the book of James and others, but even other Protestants wouldn’t let him get away with it. He did successfully redefine the OT for Protestants, but where did he get his authority? Study your bible for all of the NT verses that talk about unity and also about the Church. You are talking about the very body of Christ on earth. And like the human body the body of Christ has a spirit. It is the Holy Spirit that animates the body of Christ on earth.

The Church was given a position of authority by Jesus Himself. If it were not for the Church testifying to the authenticity of the biblical canon, I would have no confidence in the bible at all. How would I or anyone else know that these books and letters were inspired. Many good and holy writings, that are not canonical, survive from both the OT and early NT eras. Many of these writings such as the Letter of Clement or the Shepherd of Hermas read just like NT scripture but were not included in the canon. The Church determined that these could not be included because they were not deemed to be inspired. It is the Church that determined the canon because it is the only institution created by Jesus, Himself, that has been given the power and authority to make such a determination. No one else is qualified or possesses the bona fides to declare what is and what is not the inspired word of God.

 

[Becky]

Little Mary:

Would anyone like to comment on the historical fact that the Bible is a Catholic document compiled by Catholics for Catholics?

Wow, that’s a pretty big claim, but you provide no evidence to back it up. Impressive LM.

However, I would agree with that though. Catholic meaning all Christians (Church=ekklesia=called out ones), but not Roman Catholic-those who follow the traditions and teachings of the denomination centered in Rome :yup:. The Bible is a Catholic document, but not a Roman Catholic one.

Toodles,
Becky

 

[La_Chiara]

Becky:

Wow, that’s a pretty big claim, but you provide no evidence to back it up. Impressive LM.

However, I would agree with that though. Catholic meaning all Christians (Church=ekklesia=called out ones), but not Roman Catholic-those who follow the traditions and teachings of the denomination centered in Rome :yup:. The Bible is a Catholic document, but not a Roman Catholic one.

Toodles,
Becky

Becky–Did you bother to read any of the posts that provided the evidence to the very first post which you responded to? There are 70 plus responses and you only looked at the first one??? Some of them provided strong evidence supporting that indeed the Bible is very much a Catholic document. Check out especially post #68 by Tantum Ergo. And may I point out that you provided no evidence for your assertion that the Bible is NOT a Catholic document–just your opinion. :tsktsk:

 

[jimmy]

**2 Timothy 3 **3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

So, if I write a book that means it is inspired by God. That is bad logic. Timothy was writen 300 years before the bible was put together so it was not talking about the new testament. It was talking about the old testament.

 

[p90]

Pax:

Athanasius could only list the books of the New Testament with confidence because of the Church. No one can by themselves make this determination.

I would agree with this statement at face value.

You wrote a lot of other material, but I’m not sure how it addresses what I’ve written about Athanasius not needing a council to determine the canon before he could recognize it as Scripture.

Luther tried to redefine it by attempting to remove the book of James and others, but even other Protestants wouldn’t let him get away with it.

What does Luther have to do with this thread?

~Matt

 

[hlgomez]

What does Luther have to do with this thread?

Because you follow what he said.

Pio

 

[Pax]

It is not the person (i.e. Luther) that has anything to do with the thread. It is, instead, the idea that no individual can determine what is scripture and what isn’t. Luther is an example of someone who tried to do it and failed. These are matters for the Church and not the individual. That is the point I was trying to make. The example helps illustrate the difficulty when arguing against Church authority in these matters.

Obviously, Athanasius was stating what the Church was already pretty clear on. Moreover, it was only a short time later that the Church, by its Councils, made the declaration about the canon in order to remove any remaining doubt.