The Origin of the Bible

[josie_L]

So let me guess Tuttle01 is just another identity of one of the other posters already on here?

Ahh, you mean like a sock puppet. I think there are quite a few of those at CAF.

 

[po18guy]

Here is a good article about the canon answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/look-at-the-canon even has a chart

As well intentioned as these anti-Catholics may be, their reasoning is circular. It goes something like this: The bible is the word of God because the bible says it is the word of God. Well, who says that God said this? Who? The Church did - the universal, pre-Luther Church. And, when God spoke to man, be gave him 73 books. Luther didn’t like some of them, so he simply threw them away. Catholics must believe God rather than Luther. God simply has more street cred.

 

[Hisalone]

Actually the Priesthood in the OT was even more limited than in the NT. Only the tribe of Levi was allowed to have priests. Pope comes from the word “father”. And that was a title applied to all priests and Bishops.

You think just because the Pope is leader of the Church he does not serve? Do you think it is easy overseeing and entire Church that is as wide as the world. Not only do people continually look for spiritual guidance but you have to deal with politicians that do not respect human life and the sacrament of marriage, people who hate your Church, a planet that is in a constant state of crisis, write letters to the people, worry and worry some more about your wayward sheep and shepherds who wont listen to you, have all this hate concentrated to you and at the same time have Satan attack you especially because he knows that if you fall the rest will scatter. Have this and the burden of infallibility placed on you and my friend, you are in for some hard times. Some popes cracked under the pressure and went wayward, but many for the most part have guided their sheep well.

As for infallibility, if you look at Matthew 16:17-19 the only logical conclusion is infallibility. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

Matthew 16:18

“Thou art Peter (Kepha)”, said Christ, “and upon this rock (kepha) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). Various attempts have been made by opponents of the papal claims to get rid of the only obvious and natural meaning of these words, according to which Peter is to be the rock-foundation of the Church, and the source of its indefectibility against the gates of hell. It has been suggested, for example, that “this rock” is Christ Himself or that it is Peter’s faith (typifying the faith of future believers), not his person and office, on which the Church is to be built. But these and similar interpretations simply destroy the logical coherency of Christ’s statement and are excluded by the Greek and Latin texts, in which a kind of play upon the words Petros (Petrus) and petra is clearly intended, and still more forcibly by the original Aramaic which Christ spoke, and in which the same word Kêpha must have been used in both clauses. And granting, as the best modern non-Catholic commentators grant, that this text of St. Matthew contains the promise that St. Peter was to be the rock-foundation of the Church, it is impossible to deny that Peter’s successors in the primacy are heirs to this promise – unless, indeed, one is willing to admit the principle, which would be altogether subversive of the hierarchial system, that the authority bestowed by Christ on the Apostles was not intended to be transmitted to their successors, and to abide in the Church permanently. Peter’s headship was as much emphasized by Christ Himself, and was as clearly recognized in the infant Church, as was the enduring authority of the episcopal body; and it is a puzzle which the Catholic finds it hard to solve, how those who deny that the supreme authority of Peter’s successor is an essential factor in the constitution of the Church can consistently maintain the Divine authority of the episcopate. Now, as we have already seen, doctrinal indefectibility is certainly implied in Christ’s promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church, and cannot be effectively secured without doctrinal infallibility; so that if Christ’s promise means anything – if Peter’s successor is in any true sense the foundation and source of the Church’s indefectibility – he must by virtue of this office be also an organ of ecclesiastical infallibility. The metaphor used clearly implies that it was the rock-foundation which was to give stability to the superstructure, not the superstructure to the rock.

The nation of Isreal was a nation of priests to the Gentiles. Only the Levites were priests to the Isrealites. In the NT there is a priestood of all belivers.

No Questionser no matter how you slice nor how you dice Mathew 16
the office of “Pope” is not instituted nor does it talk of infalibility The Church at Rome has added all that.

 

[Hisalone]

Correct! The Luther canon of scripture is man made. The Luther doctrine of sola scriptura is man made. The Luther doctrine of sola fide is man made. No, Christ’s Church teaches us to stick to a complete set of scripture, Paul’s Apostolic tradition and the Magisterium (Apostolic teaching authority) that Jesus both exemplified and gave to His Church. True Catholics are obedient, denying themselves, taking up their crosses daily, and only then following Christ.

Wrong

A brief historical recapitulation of the steps that led to Luther’s Sola Scriptura dictum may be helpful. After Luther posted his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517, a series of debates, correspondence,

[p.104]

charges, and countercharges ensued, culminating in Luther’s dramatic stand at Worms in April 1521. The two most significant transitional points between the theses of 1517 and the Diet of Worms of 1521 were the debates at Augsburg and Leipzig.

In October 1518 Luther met with Cardinal Cajetan of the Dominicans. Cajetan was acknowledged to be the most learned theologian of the Roman Curia. In the course of their discussions Cajetan was able to elicit from Luther his views on the infallibility of the pope. Luther asserted that the pope could err and claimed that Pope Clement VI’s bull Unigenitus (1343) was contrary to Scripture.2

In the summer of 1519 the dramatic encounter between Luther and Johannes von Eck took place at Leipzig. In this exchange Eck elicited from Luther the admission of his belief that not only could the pope err but church councils could and did err as well. It was at Leipzig that Luther made clear his assertion: Scripture alone is the ultimate, divine authority in all matters pertaining to religion. Gordon Rupp gives the following account:

Luther affirmed that “among the articles of John Huss and the Hussites which were condemned, are many which are truly Christian and evangelical, and which the church universal cannot condemn!” This was sensational! There was a moment of shocked silence, and then an uproar above which could be heard Duke George’s disgusted, “Gad, Sir, that’s the Plague! …” Eck pressed his advantage home, and Luther, trapped, admitted that since their decrees are also of human law, Councils may err.3

So by the time Luther stood before the Diet of Worms, the principle of Sola Scriptura was already well established in his mind and work. Only the Scripture carries absolute normative authority. Why? For Luther the sola of Sola Scriptura was inseparably related to the Scriptures’ unique inerrancy. It was because popes could and did err and because councils could and did err that Luther came to realize the supremacy of Scripture. Luther did not despise church authority nor did he repudiate church councils as having no value. His praise of the Council of Nicea is noteworthy. Luther and the Reformers did not mean by Sola Scriptura that the Bible is the only authority in the church. Rather, they meant that the Bible is the only infallible authority in the church. Paul Althaus summarizes the train of Luther’s thought by saying:

We may trust unconditionally only in the Word of God and not in the teaching of the fathers; for the teachers of the Church can err

[p.105]

and have erred. Scripture never errs. Therefore it alone has unconditional authority. The authority of the theologians of the Church is relative and conditional. Without the authority of the words of Scripture, no one can establish hard and fast statements in the Church.4

Thus Althaus sees Luther’s principle of Sola Scriptura arising as a corollary of the inerrancy of Scripture. To be sure, the fact that Scripture is elevated to be the sole authority of the church does not carry with it the necessary inference that it is inerrant. It could be asserted that councils, popes, and the Bible all err5 and still postulate a theory of Sola Scriptura. Scripture could be considered on a primus inter pares (“first among equals”) basis with ecclesiastical authority, giving it a kind of primacy among errant sources. Or Scripture could be regarded as carrying unique authority solely on the basis of its being the primary historical source of the gospel. But the Reformers’ view of Sola Scriptura was higher than this. The Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura involved inerrancy.6

Sola Scriptura, ascribing to the Scriptures a unique authority, must be understood in a normative sense. Not descriptive, but rather normative authority is meant by the formula. The normative character of the Sola Scriptura principle may be seen by a brief survey of sixteenth-century Reformed confessions.7 The Theses of Berne (1528):

The Church of Christ makes no laws or commandments without God’s Word. Hence all human traditions, which are called ecclesiastical commandments, are binding upon us only in so far as they are based on and commanded by God’s Word (Sec. II).

 

[Hisalone]

Answers in Genesis? Are you kidding me? Reliable reasearh is not exactly their long suit…

Attack the messenger that all you have done. You have not provided anything definitve in your presentation. The Catholic Church has been proven bankrupt in regards to its assertion on the cannon and you offer nothing!

 

[Hisalone]

If the office of Priest is the same, then yes indeed there is a limited priesthood. According to the book od Exodus, all Jews were priests in alimited sense, but then there was also the ordained, Levitical Priesthood.

The NT office of priest is not limited.

 

[Hisalone]

As well intentioned as these anti-Catholics may be, their reasoning is circular. It goes something like this: The bible is the word of God because the bible says it is the word of God. Well, who says that God said this? Who? The Church did - the universal, pre-Luther Church. And, when God spoke to man, be gave him 73 books. Luther didn’t like some of them, so he simply threw them away. Catholics must believe God rather than Luther. God simply has more street cred.

Has has been demonstrated Catholics added seven books Protestants did not remove the seven books.

 

[CWBetts]

The NT office of priest is not limited.

The Priesthood of all believers is not the same as the Ordasined Priesthood. Where is your evidence for no ordained priesthood?

 

[CWBetts]

Has has been demonstrated Catholics added seven books Protestants did not remove the seven books.

We have shown evidence that the oppisite is the case, you in your position as self-appointed Pope has rtejected it!

 

[josie_L]

Has has been demonstrated Catholics added seven books Protestants did not remove the seven books.

Do we have a Bible with only 66 books previous to the reformation? Because If we Catholics did add books then it shouldn’t be so hard to find?

 

[josie_L]

The Priesthood of all believers is not the same as the Ordasined Priesthood. Where is your evidence for no ordained priesthood?

I suppose Hisalone puts himself on par with the apostles/priests Peter, Paul . . etc.

 

[Tuttle01]

As well intentioned as these anti-Catholics may be, their reasoning is circular. It goes something like this: The bible is the word of God because the bible says it is the word of God. Well, who says that God said this? Who? The Church did - the universal, pre-Luther Church. And, when God spoke to man, be gave him 73 books. Luther didn’t like some of them, so he simply threw them away. Catholics must believe God rather than Luther. God simply has more street cred.

I will disagree with this. It is clear from history that the OT was accepted long before the RCC got involved, further the NT was what we have now long before Trent came along. Indeed it can be found throughout the early Church much of the NT as it stands today, the idea that God needs man to preserve His Holy Word is quite absurd.

Those books you speak were rejected by many before Luther was on the seen even Jerome had reservations about the Apocrypha, if internet Catholics stop insisting falsely that their church is responsible for everything then maybe we can all get along. The biggest problem is armchair catholics apologist who refuse to study and just think their church did it all.

 

[Tuttle01]

Has has been demonstrated Catholics added seven books Protestants did not remove the seven books.

Actually my dear chap, both assertions are true. Indeed those seven extra books were around before the RCC came into the picture; However they were not considered inspired even Jerome who did translation work did not consider them inspired. Some leaders treated them differently as inspired others as not.

St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent .

–The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon

It was not until Trent that all 73 books were said to be part of the catholic bible; However the Christian Bible still contains the 66 which is the 39 from the OT that were accept by the Hebrews and the whole NT accept by all. The Canon has a rich history but in no way is it dominated by the RCC as they would have one believe, the canon was not dominated by any one group.

 

[josie_L]

Wrong

A brief historical recapitulation of the steps that led to Luther’s Sola Scriptura dictum may be helpful. After Luther posted his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517, a series of debates, correspondence,

[p.104]

charges, and countercharges ensued, culminating in Luther’s dramatic stand at Worms in April 1521. The two most significant transitional points between the theses of 1517 and the Diet of Worms of 1521 were the debates at Augsburg and Leipzig.

In October 1518 Luther met with Cardinal Cajetan of the Dominicans. Cajetan was acknowledged to be the most learned theologian of the Roman Curia. In the course of their discussions Cajetan was able to elicit from Luther his views on the infallibility of the pope. Luther asserted that the pope could err and claimed that Pope Clement VI’s bull Unigenitus (1343) was contrary to Scripture.2

In the summer of 1519 the dramatic encounter between Luther and Johannes von Eck took place at Leipzig. In this exchange Eck elicited from Luther the admission of his belief that not only could the pope err but church councils could and did err as well. It was at Leipzig that Luther made clear his assertion: Scripture alone is the ultimate, divine authority in all matters pertaining to religion. Gordon Rupp gives the following account:

Luther affirmed that “among the articles of John Huss and the Hussites which were condemned, are many which are truly Christian and evangelical, and which the church universal cannot condemn!” This was sensational! There was a moment of shocked silence, and then an uproar above which could be heard Duke George’s disgusted, “Gad, Sir, that’s the Plague! …” Eck pressed his advantage home, and Luther, trapped, admitted that since their decrees are also of human law, Councils may err.3

So by the time Luther stood before the Diet of Worms, the principle of Sola Scriptura was already well established in his mind and work. Only the Scripture carries absolute normative authority. Why? For Luther the sola of Sola Scriptura was inseparably related to the Scriptures’ unique inerrancy. It was because popes could and did err and because councils could and did err that Luther came to realize the supremacy of Scripture. Luther did not despise church authority nor did he repudiate church councils as having no value. His praise of the Council of Nicea is noteworthy. Luther and the Reformers did not mean by Sola Scriptura that the Bible is the only authority in the church. Rather, they meant that the Bible is the only infallible authority in the church. Paul Althaus summarizes the train of Luther’s thought by saying:

We may trust unconditionally only in the Word of God and not in the teaching of the fathers; for the teachers of the Church can err

[p.105]

and have erred. Scripture never errs. Therefore it alone has unconditional authority. The authority of the theologians of the Church is relative and conditional. Without the authority of the words of Scripture, no one can establish hard and fast statements in the Church.4

Thus Althaus sees Luther’s principle of Sola Scriptura arising as a corollary of the inerrancy of Scripture. To be sure, the fact that Scripture is elevated to be the sole authority of the church does not carry with it the necessary inference that it is inerrant. It could be asserted that councils, popes, and the Bible all err5 and still postulate a theory of Sola Scriptura. Scripture could be considered on a primus inter pares (“first among equals”) basis with ecclesiastical authority, giving it a kind of primacy among errant sources. Or Scripture could be regarded as carrying unique authority solely on the basis of its being the primary historical source of the gospel. But the Reformers’ view of Sola Scriptura was higher than this. The Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura involved inerrancy.6

Sola Scriptura, ascribing to the Scriptures a unique authority, must be understood in a normative sense. Not descriptive, but rather normative authority is meant by the formula. The normative character of the Sola Scriptura principle may be seen by a brief survey of sixteenth-century Reformed confessions.7 The Theses of Berne (1528):

The Church of Christ makes no laws or commandments without God’s Word. Hence all human traditions, which are called ecclesiastical commandments, are binding upon us only in so far as they are based on and commanded by God’s Word (Sec. II).

I didn’t read all of your post, but I have several things to say, one, Luther had no choice to say that scripture was the only infallible authority as he had just broken away from sacred tradition and the infallible authority of the CC (so he could start his own church based on his own interpretation), two, once this “God” given doctrine of SS came into play we find immediate confusion as multiple self-appointed interpreters came to different conclusions from what Luther taught (but how is this possible if SS is true), three, the reaction by Luther was to persecute or malign those who did not agree with him (as he did with the Anabaptists), fourth, the reformers were at odds with their theology to the point where they would insult and cast aspersions on one another. Fourth, this confusion of interpretations and theology could not be the working of the Holy Spirit, fifthly, why do present protestants not believe as Luther and Calvin did on issues such as contraceptives and the Virgin Mary? Are protestants one in faith, body and baptism as Ephesians points out?

p.s. If teachers of the Church err then I would suppose you do not go to Church (otherwise how would you know if what you preacher says is being infallibly interpreted, or is it you who interprets infallibly)? If it’s you who interprets infallibly (through the HS) than it is not the Bible who is the infallible authority for interpreting the Bible.

 

[josie_L]

I will disagree with this. It is clear from history that the OT was accepted long before the RCC got involved, further the NT was what we have now long before Trent came along. Indeed it can be found throughout the early Church much of the NT as it stands today, the idea that God needs man to preserve His Holy Word is quite absurd.

Those books you speak were rejected by many before Luther was on the seen even Jerome had reservations about the Apocrypha, if internet Catholics stop insisting falsely that their church is responsible for everything then maybe we can all get along. The biggest problem is armchair catholics apologist who refuse to study and just think their church did it all.

The deutercanonical books were always accepted by the Church as inspired scripture, that some individuals had reservations about it throughout time means nothing. The many councils established to verify the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals were always upheld.

 

[po18guy]

Wrong

A brief historical recapitulation of the steps that led to Luther’s Sola Scriptura dictum may be helpful. After Luther posted his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517, a series of debates, correspondence,

[p.104]

charges, and countercharges ensued, culminating in Luther’s dramatic stand at Worms in April 1521. The two most significant transitional points between the theses of 1517 and the Diet of Worms of 1521 were the debates at Augsburg and Leipzig.

In October 1518 Luther met with Cardinal Cajetan of the Dominicans. Cajetan was acknowledged to be the most learned theologian of the Roman Curia. In the course of their discussions Cajetan was able to elicit from Luther his views on the infallibility of the pope. Luther asserted that the pope could err and claimed that Pope Clement VI’s bull Unigenitus (1343) was contrary to Scripture.2

In the summer of 1519 the dramatic encounter between Luther and Johannes von Eck took place at Leipzig. In this exchange Eck elicited from Luther the admission of his belief that not only could the pope err but church councils could and did err as well. It was at Leipzig that Luther made clear his assertion: Scripture alone is the ultimate, divine authority in all matters pertaining to religion. Gordon Rupp gives the following account:

Luther affirmed that “among the articles of John Huss and the Hussites which were condemned, are many which are truly Christian and evangelical, and which the church universal cannot condemn!” This was sensational! There was a moment of shocked silence, and then an uproar above which could be heard Duke George’s disgusted, “Gad, Sir, that’s the Plague! …” Eck pressed his advantage home, and Luther, trapped, admitted that since their decrees are also of human law, Councils may err.3

So by the time Luther stood before the Diet of Worms, the principle of Sola Scriptura was already well established in his mind and work. Only the Scripture carries absolute normative authority. Why? For Luther the sola of Sola Scriptura was inseparably related to the Scriptures’ unique inerrancy. It was because popes could and did err and because councils could and did err that Luther came to realize the supremacy of Scripture. Luther did not despise church authority nor did he repudiate church councils as having no value. His praise of the Council of Nicea is noteworthy. Luther and the Reformers did not mean by Sola Scriptura that the Bible is the only authority in the church. Rather, they meant that the Bible is the only infallible authority in the church. Paul Althaus summarizes the train of Luther’s thought by saying:

We may trust unconditionally only in the Word of God and not in the teaching of the fathers; for the teachers of the Church can err

[p.105]

and have erred. Scripture never errs. Therefore it alone has unconditional authority. The authority of the theologians of the Church is relative and conditional. Without the authority of the words of Scripture, no one can establish hard and fast statements in the Church.4

Thus Althaus sees Luther’s principle of Sola Scriptura arising as a corollary of the inerrancy of Scripture. To be sure, the fact that Scripture is elevated to be the sole authority of the church does not carry with it the necessary inference that it is inerrant. It could be asserted that councils, popes, and the Bible all err5 and still postulate a theory of Sola Scriptura. Scripture could be considered on a primus inter pares (“first among equals”) basis with ecclesiastical authority, giving it a kind of primacy among errant sources. Or Scripture could be regarded as carrying unique authority solely on the basis of its being the primary historical source of the gospel. But the Reformers’ view of Sola Scriptura was higher than this. The Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura involved inerrancy.6

Sola Scriptura, ascribing to the Scriptures a unique authority, must be understood in a normative sense. Not descriptive, but rather normative authority is meant by the formula. The normative character of the Sola Scriptura principle may be seen by a brief survey of sixteenth-century Reformed confessions.7 The Theses of Berne (1528):

The Church of Christ makes no laws or commandments without God’s Word. Hence all human traditions, which are called ecclesiastical commandments, are binding upon us only in so far as they are based on and commanded by God’s Word (Sec. II).

And, the unidentified and unbiased source of this cut and paste is??? ?Without attribution, I cannot believe a word of it.

 

[josie_L]

Actually my dear chap, both assertions are true. Indeed those seven extra books were around before the RCC came into the picture; However they were not considered inspired even Jerome who did translation work did not consider them inspired. Some leaders treated them differently as inspired others as not.

–The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon

It was not until Trent that all 73 books were said to be part of the catholic bible; However the Christian Bible still contains the 66 which is the 39 from the OT that were accept by the Hebrews and the whole NT accept by all. The Canon has a rich history but in no way is it dominated by the RCC as they would have one believe, the canon was not dominated by any one group.

Just to clarify that your last paragraph are your own words and not that of the New Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

[JonNC]

As well intentioned as these anti-Catholics may be, their reasoning is circular. It goes something like this: The bible is the word of God because the bible says it is the word of God. Well, who says that God said this? Who? The Church did - the universal, pre-Luther Church. And, when God spoke to man, be gave him 73 books. Luther didn’t like some of them, so he simply threw them away. Catholics must believe God rather than Luther. God simply has more street cred.

Again, Luther translated and included all 73 of the books histroically in the western Church’s Bible. Luther threw none of them away, any more than St. Jerome or Cardinal Cajetan did.
Luther didn’t “not like them”. He, like many other theologians, questioned their canonicty. But he did say the were valuable to read and study. And so thinking he translated and included all 73 of the books historically found in the western Church’s Bible.

One more point, there was never unanimity about the canon in the so-called pre-Luther Church. Orthodoxy’s canon was and continues to be different.

Jon

 

[po18guy]

I will disagree with this. It is clear from history that the OT was accepted long before the RCC got involved, further the NT was what we have now long before Trent came along. Indeed it can be found throughout the early Church much of the NT as it stands today, the idea that God needs man to preserve His Holy Word is quite absurd.

Your unusual opinion is noted. So, did the Lord Himself hand you your bible? The canon of scripture was settled in 384 by Pope Damasus 1 ad the Church council. You obviously do not believe this, just as you have chosen not to believe so much else of God’s revealed truth.

Those books you speak were rejected by many before Luther was on the seen even

So what?

Jerome had reservations about the Apocrypha

You, out of ignorance or false teaching, refer to God’s word as apocrypha. Please consider who you are actually insulting. Certainly, Jerome had reservations, but for the sake of unity and obedience, he deferred to the authority of the Church. He later recanted his objections to it. He is a Saint. Luther was disobedient and cared more about ego than unity. He is not a Saint.

, if internet Catholics stop insisting falsely that their church is responsible for everything then maybe we can all get along. The biggest problem is armchair catholics apologist who refuse to study and just think their church did it all.

You are funny! So, you prefer the authority of man to the authority given by God? Amazing!

 

[po18guy]

The Luther canon? I’m not sure he ever had one. As I said earlier, even the Lutheran Church has never technically closed the canon that I know of. He must not have been really set on it, though, because he translated all the books of the western Bible of his time, and included them all. That’s a lot of work to do if they weren’t important to him.

Jon

What I refer to is Luther’s self-appointed authority to “demote” Sacred Scripture to the level of “apochrypha”. He had no church council to assist him - he did it by himself. So, it was man made, that is, outside of the authority of the Church that Christ founded.