The CC "got it right" on the NT canon? How do you know?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PRmerger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
For example:
I can read a physics textbook and accumulate knowledge. Through study I can point to formulas for proof of the action of physics in the world. I can be fairly rigid with the proofs therein, and show someone to be wrong in their interpretation of the book.

But that’s physics.

You are talking about “Theo-pneustos”. Theo is God, no??
Your question about theopneustos must not only ask what, but who, because we are talkig about a deeply personal relationship with God, and how that relationship involves human beings.

In contrast to learning your physics textbook, I have a wife who I “know”.
I know a lot of details about my wife, just like I can know the physics textbook.

Her age, weight, occupation, what she likes for dinner. I come to learn these things. Not leaving my shoes laying around makes for a happy marriage. Etc…

But you know that this knowledge is not the fullness of knowing your spouse. A much deeper mystery is in play. This mystery involves the exchange of gifts between persons on different levels.

This type of knowing is not just a matter of what, it’s primarily a matter of who.
 
clem456 said:
You are talking about “Theo-pneustos”. Theo is God, no??
Your question about theopneustos must not only ask what, but who, because we are talking about a deeply personal relationship with God, and how that relationship involves human beings. In contrast to learning your physics textbook, I have a wife who I “know”.
I know a lot of details about my wife, just like I can know the physics textbook. But you know that this knowledge is not the fullness of knowing your spouse. A much deeper mystery is in play. This mystery involves the exchange of gifts between persons on different levels. This type of knowing is not just a matter of what, it’s primarily a matter of who.
Click to expand...
Maybe I am trying to hold this to too rigid a standard.

What is your field of study in physics? I am a perpetual undergrad phys major(6th year senior). So whatever you say you study I will look up quick so as to gain a prima facia knowledge of it in order to try and sound smart. (◕_-)

Anyway the problem for me is how can I study(get to know) God if not by scripture, and how can I know it is scripture if I don’t know God? If I am trying not to rely on the authority of the RCC it seems circular to say that my proof that scripture is theopneustos is that I see God’s hand in it’s writing when I didn’t know who God was before I read it. No matter what my fundi friends want to tell me about Rom1; I have gained very little knowledge of God from creation. This is why when PR and I were talking about this before I said that I accept the inspired nature of scripture axiomatically or if you prefer presumptively.

Even with the tradition of the RCC it still seems circular. I know God through scripture and tradition but how could I know that scripture and tradition is of God except by having knowledge of God.

This is why scripture and/or tradition need to be accepted axiomatically or they need to be part of specific revelation. Maybe there is a third, forth, and fifth proper way to think about this since I am framing an argument specifically around your last comment.
 
Protestor said:
…
Anyway the problem for me is how can I study(get to know) God if not by scripture, and how can I know it is scripture if I don’t know God?
…
Click to expand...
By having a relationship with Jesus Christ and others.

Prayer edifies your relationship with Jesus.
Study of Scripture edifies your relationship with Jesus (He is the word made flesh).
Listening to others edifies your relationship with Jesus (He is the word made flesh).

Through prayer, reading, conversation, and discernment, you will come to know and trust Jesus. You will also come to trust others. Whether those are “others” are the Catholic Church or some other denomination, I have no idea. I can tell you what I think and believe, but faith is your choice to accept.

Ask Christ, and listen with patience.
 
Protestor said:
Maybe I am trying to hold this to too rigid a standard.

What is your field of study in physics? I am a perpetual undergrad phys major(6th year senior). So whatever you say you study I will look up quick so as to gain a prima facia knowledge of it in order to try and sound smart. (◕_-)

Anyway the problem for me is how can I study(get to know) God if not by scripture, and how can I know it is scripture if I don’t know God? If I am trying not to rely on the authority of the RCC it seems circular to say that my proof that scripture is theopneustos is that I see God’s hand in it’s writing when I didn’t know who God was before I read it. No matter what my fundi friends want to tell me about Rom1; I have gained very little knowledge of God from creation. This is why when PR and I were talking about this before I said that I accept the inspired nature of scripture axiomatically or if you prefer presumptively.

Even with the tradition of the RCC it still seems circular. I know God through scripture and tradition but how could I know that scripture and tradition is of God except by having knowledge of God.

This is why scripture and/or tradition need to be accepted axiomatically or they need to be part of specific revelation. Maybe there is a third, forth, and fifth proper way to think about this since I am framing an argument specifically around your last comment.
Click to expand...
Allow me to make an observation as a Christian brother.
When I read the above post I see knots. In your quest to understand you are tying yourself into contorted knots. Would you hold a friend or family member to the same exactitude you are asking of Christ?

The hardest part of the Christian life for me is surrender to Christ in trusting faith. To give up my desire (demands?) for certainty and take the leap of faith. The certainty I desire never comes, and my whole life is one door after another, opening into another challenge to my faith, another un-certainty.

The only certainty is, Christ is calling us forward in faith. That faith is a gift. It has to be simple and unencumbered.
 
Protestor said:
This is why when PR and I were talking about this before I said that I accept the inspired nature of scripture axiomatically or if you prefer presumptively.
Click to expand...
Yes. Presumptively. You presume that the CC got it right in determining that Hebrews is theopneustos but the Epistle of Clement is not.

That is, you submit to her authority here.

That’s what I’ve been trying oh-so-diligently to get you to see.
 
PRmerger said:
Yes. Presumptively. You presume that the CC got it right in determining that Hebrews is theopneustos but the Epistle of Clement is not. That is, you submit to her authority here.
Click to expand...
I am fine with your statement if you change “submit” to partially submit. But there is a distinct difference which is what I have been trying to get you to see. The difference is I would not say that I know that the bible, outside of james and rev, is thoepneustos. At most I would say I have faith that they are inspired. I think that blind faith is a more appropriate statement to describe this concept. As far as I am concerned it could turn out tomorrow that God himself tells us Acts is not theopneustos and it wouldn’t effect my belief system at all. I know that you claim that you hold the truth that Acts is theopneustos so this theoretical scenario is technically impossible by your standards. Quite frankly Acts is my least favorite book in the NT so I would be okay with this. If it is easier for you to accept God could tomorrow tell us that 1Clement is theopneustos and I would gladly accept it as such.

There are many different ways we could go with this and I’ll leave it to you though which direction you want to take this. Also I will be at a bachelor party all weekend so don’t expect a response.
 
Protestor said:
I am fine with your statement if you change “submit” to partially submit. But there is a distinct difference which is what I have been trying to get you to see. The difference is I would not say that I know that the bible, outside of james and rev, is thoepneustos. At most I would say I have faith that they are inspired. I think that blind faith is a more appropriate statement to describe this concept. As far as I am concerned it could turn out tomorrow that God himself tells us Acts is not theopneustos and it wouldn’t effect my belief system at all. I know that you claim that you hold the truth that Acts is theopneustos so this theoretical scenario is technically impossible by your standards. Quite frankly Acts is my least favorite book in the NT so I would be okay with this. If it is easier for you to accept God could tomorrow tell us that 1Clement is theopneustos and I would gladly accept it as such.

There are many different ways we could go with this and I’ll leave it to you though which direction you want to take this. Also I will be at a bachelor party all weekend so don’t expect a response.
Click to expand...
If God were to come down and tell us something, I don’t think books of the bible would be very significant, because if He did say something like you suggested, it would mean much more at stake than including or excluding a book.

You see, the Catholic Church has defined Scripture and closed it’s canon. It has done so with the authority vested in herself by Jesus.

If you don’t believe the Church, in the manner which she Teaches, can declare matters of faith and morals with Christ’s own authority, then you will continue to struggle with much doubt along with your faith.

Many Christians believe very strongly that the Bible is the most reliable (even the ONLY reliable for some) source for God’s Word. But they don’t realize that faith in the Church’s ability to discern and declare, infallibly, what we are to regard as Scripture and what is not Scripture, is inevitable once they claim the Bible to be God’s Word. Since God did NOT declare anything about them.
 
Protestor said:
I am fine with your statement if you change “submit” to partially submit.
Click to expand...
AWESOMEEEEEE!!! I knew that there was a light at the end of this tunnel!
But there is a distinct difference which is what I have been trying to get you to see. The difference is I would not say that I know that the bible, outside of james and rev, is thoepneustos. At most I would say I have faith that they are inspired
Click to expand...
Why outside of James and Revelation? :confused:

And you have faith in the Catholic Church. That’s what you have faith in, right?
I think that blind faith is a more appropriate statement to describe this concept. As far as I am concerned it could turn out tomorrow that God himself tells us Acts is not theopneustos and it wouldn’t effect my belief system at all.
Click to expand...
Firstly, how would God do this?

And secondly, does this mean that your faith (here, read “doctrines”) does not come from the Scriptures?

If so, where do you get your doctrines from?
Quite frankly Acts is my least favorite book in the NT so I would be okay with this.
Click to expand...
Wow.

That’s getting quite close to creating a god in one’s own image. “I’ll only consider the books of the Bible that I like to be theopneustos”.
If it is easier for you to accept God could tomorrow tell us that 1Clement is theopneustos and I would gladly accept it as such.
Click to expand...
Again, how would God do this?
 
PRmerger said:
AWESOMEEEEEE!!! I knew that there was a light at the end of this tunnel! And you have faith in the Catholic Church. That’s what you have faith in, right?
Click to expand...
Pretty much, yes if we are going for yes and no answers.
Firstly, how would God do this?
Click to expand...
No idea, cloud of fire, pillar of smoke, descending on a mountain, “face to face” as it was with Moses, and/or the multitude of ways that I am incapable of coming up with on the fly. I am just saying that it is possible that he could.
Again, how would God do this?
Click to expand...
For you or for me?
And secondly, does this mean that your “doctrines” do not come from the Scriptures?
Click to expand...
No
Wow.That’s getting quite close to creating a god in one’s own image. “I’ll only consider the books of the Bible that I like to be theopneustos”.
Click to expand...
It almost as if ever time I write something you automatically think I am saying the most absurd version of what I say. You are very easily astonished my sister. It’s kind of like trying to use a reductio ad absurdum argument without actually properly doing it.
 
Protestor said:
It almost as if ever time I write something you automatically think I am saying the most absurd version of what I say. You are very easily astonished my sister. It’s kind of like trying to use a reductio ad absurdum argument without actually properly doing it.
Click to expand...
She’s making a very important point. You just said you would be okay with God taking out Acts, because YOU don’t personally like it. What if God chose one of your favorite books? (maybe the Gospel of John?) I’d imagine you’d be upset. Well why is that?

If you truly believe what God is revealing is His word, then shouldn’t you joyously receive them? But instead it definitely comes across as you judging if Scripture is “okay” based upon your own opinion, and not the will of God.
 
Protestor said:
No idea, cloud of fire, pillar of smoke, descending on a mountain, “face to face” as it was with Moses, and/or the multitude of ways that I am incapable of coming up with on the fly.
Click to expand...
So you believe that public revelation hasn’t ended?

There is more for God to reveal, even though the Word Incarnate, the Eternal Logos, already came? His Work was not sufficient?
I am just saying that it is possible that he could.
Click to expand...
And how would you know that this is God, and not:

-aliens
-the Evil One
-a great hoax by some very tech-savvy scientists?
 
Protestor said:
As far as I am concerned it could turn out tomorrow that God himself tells us Acts is not theopneustos and it wouldn’t effect my belief system at all.
Click to expand...
PRmerger said:
And secondly, does this mean that your faith (here, read “doctrines”) does not come from the Scriptures?
Click to expand...
Protestor said:
No
Click to expand...
You assert that your doctrines** do **come from Scripture.

Yet you say that if Acts were not inspired, it wouldn’t affect your belief system at all.

The only conclusion that can be gleaned from this is that Acts has no doctrinal content in it for you?

Is that your position?
 
Protestor said:
It almost as if ever time I write something you automatically think I am saying the most absurd version of what I say. You are very easily astonished my sister.
Click to expand...
I am not alone in this.

Folk on this thread besides me have been astonished by the assertions you’ve been making.

One even called your view heretical. (Not me.)
 
PRmerger said:
I am not alone in this.

Folk on this thread besides me have been astonished by the assertions you’ve been making.

One even called your view heretical. (Not me.)
Click to expand...
Protestor , I still stand by my comment of your view of the scriptures being heretical.
 
It’s good to be judicious with the H word.

In order to be a heretic one must be Catholic.
For instance:
Martin Luther was considered a heretic because he was a Catholic. His Protestant descendants are not heretics because they were never Catholic.

I think the word heretical is overused and misused, but maybe that’s just me.
 
clem456 said:
It’s good to be judicious with the H word.

In order to be a heretic one must be Catholic.
For instance:
Martin Luther was considered a heretic because he was a Catholic. His Protestant descendants are not heretics because they were never Catholic.

I think the word heretical is overused and misused, but maybe that’s just me.
Click to expand...
disagree .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top