Who is Your Infallibe Teacher?

[JRKH]

All of the scriptures were assembled into one book for the first time by Constantine.

This statement is patently wrong.
The councils which set the final canon of the Bible as we know ti today may well have occurred during the time of Constatntine but it was the Church and not Constatnine who did the determining.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

ababbidg,

However, I do not believe the Catholic Church assembled the Bible. In other words, the argument you used already assumes what you are setting out to prove, that is, that the Catholic Church assembled the Bible.

The problem is that you are confusing “Scripture” with "The Bible. It’s playing with semantics.
Yes you are right in that the inspired Scriptures had been developing over the centuries before Christ. However not even all of the Jews agreed which should be included. I believe the Sadducees and Pharasees argued over whether the Prophets shoudl be included or just he Pentatuch. You are also right that some books were immedialteyl and widely accepted as inspired but others were not. However, that applies to “Scripture” and what we are talking about is “The Bible” which carries a specific meaning.

When one says "The Bible, or The Holy Bible, we connect that with a specific set of books including both the OT and the NT. We do not need to specify anything beyond this.
The Bible is the volume that contains the Scriptures that are accepted by Christians today.
That volume was assembled in its present form at teh Councils of Hippo and Carthage and approved by the Pope at the end of the 4th Century, that is, around 400 AD.
It was this canon that was translated by St Jerome into the Vulgate and remained unchanged until the Protestant Reformation 1100 years later.
This same canon was reaffirmed 7 times by various councils all before the Protestant reformation.
The declaration at Trent did not determine the canon of the Bible, it only “closed it” and this was only because of the tampering by the reformers.

So in conclusion -
One can always muddy the issue by the arguments you advance but the simple fact is that the Bible in use today by Christians was assembled, translated, copied, promulgated, taught from, protected by, and spread far and wide by none other than the Catholic Church.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

ababbidg,

The point is that it was being assembled all along. You cannot point to one time and say that this was the time when the whole Bible was assembled. Books were recognized as scripture, some have even argued as early as the days of Joshua [and I think that they are probably right], and, as they were written, they were recognized as inspired and binding in their authority long before the Catholic Church came along. Thus, it was not a point in time, but a process.

The problem is that you are confusing “Scripture” with "The Bible. It’s playing with semantics.
Yes you are right in that the inspired Scriptures had been developing over the centuries before Christ. However not even all of the Jews agreed which should be included. I believe the Sadducees and Pharasees argued over whether the Prophets shoudl be included or just he Pentatuch. You are also right that some books were immedialteyl and widely accepted as inspired but others were not. However, that applies to “Scripture” and what we are talking about is “The Bible” which carries a specific meaning.

When one says "The Bible, or The Holy Bible, we connect that with a specific set of books including both the OT and the NT. We do not need to specify anything beyond this.
The Bible is the volume that contains the Scriptures that are accepted by Christians today.
That volume was assembled in its present form at teh Councils of Hippo and Carthage and approved by the Pope at the end of the 4th Century, that is, around 400 AD.
It was this canon that was translated by St Jerome into the Vulgate and remained unchanged until the Protestant Reformation 1100 years later.
This same canon was reaffirmed 7 times by various councils all before the Protestant reformation.
The declaration at Trent did not determine the canon of the Bible, it only “closed it” and this was only because of the tampering by the reformers.

So in conclusion -
One can always muddy the issue by the arguments you advance but the simple fact is that the Bible in use today by Christians was assembled, translated, copied, promulgated, taught from, protected by, and spread far and wide by none other than the Catholic Church.

That’s not good logic. You believe, as a Catholic, that the Orthodox Presbyterian Church got the New Testament canon right. Why would you think the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is right about the New Testament, and not the Old?

Are you sure that you wrote this correctly? You believe that a "Church’ founded in 1936 determined the NT???
I guess I’m confused here

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

JRKH,
I already did in posts 40 and 42. The short answer is that our infallible teacher is God himself who condescended to us to reveal himself in a way that those who are fallible, yet taught and stable can understand.

Thanks for the clarification. I apologize for not catching that.
Frankly I’m surprised more people haven’t said God is their teacher, or the Holy Spirit is.

I note on the OPC website that the OPC has a Catachism. Do you accept the teachings of the Catachism?

The only reason we are talking about this is because ababbidg said that he believes Catholic interpretations to be correct because he believes that the Catholic Church assembled the Bible.
And in this case, as I explained earlier, he is exactly correct.

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

=mark a;5439570]Please!!

It was a question, Mark, and a serious one. If I decided to become either Catholic or Orthodox, coming to the belief that The Augsburg Confession is wrong, which one do I choose? If I choose the wrong one, I’ve simply moved from wrong to wrong.

Was Luther Missouri Synod? I think his views on contraception were closer to Wisconsin Synod.

No, I am, because I believe that, on balance, LCMS best adheres to the Lutheran Confessions, which is the measure of Lutheranism, not Luther himself.

Jon

 

[SSTeacher]

a_mirror_dimly;4240107:

Quite the contrary, I am all too aware of my own fallibility. There is nothing in my faith which precludes looking to others of faith both past and present for assistance and insight in reading the scriptures, particularly if some interpretation seems novel or different from what I hear around me.

I always seek to approach God and His teaching with humility, forming understanding but not becoming calcified to teaching which is based on derivation upon derivation or unwilling to accept insight from others.

It is for this reason that I try to ask more questions than I state opinions.I know this is a old thread, but as I was reviewing it this thought occurred to me and I wished to address it with a_mirror_dimly or any other protestant/NCC who wishes to respond.

In reference to the bolded statement, would such research include reading from Catholic Sources? In other words would you give the same weight to a catholic author’s interpretation that you give to a non-catholic author?

Curious

Peace
James

Hi James,

When I first converted to Evangelical Christianity in the year 2000 I had but a vague idea of what was in the Bible. I could name some of the characters in the Old Testament such as Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Daniel and Jonah and I’d certainly heard of Jesus and knew some of the details of His parables but I didn’t really understand them (for example, I can recall that I always felt the parable of laborers in the vineyard was ridiculous).

Initially, then, because I knew next to nothing I accepted on faith the beliefs and interpretations held by the denomination that I joined. But as I “grew into” that belief system and became more biblically literate I began to see how one could find “biblical support” for the beliefs that I’d initially accepted on trust and that helped me to solidify the basis for my belief. Nevertheless, the biblical support that I came to rely upon couldn’t really be described as “objective teaching” in the same sense, say, that the Catechism of the Catholic Church lays out Catholic belief and practice since I was relying upon subjective interpretations passed on to me. I didn’t fully realize this until I became a Sunday school teacher at which point I began to read lots of Bible commentaries – by Evangelical interpreters naturally – and one of the results of that was I began slowly to move toward a SOLO Scriptura position.

In the early stages of my Sunday school teaching I most certainly wouldn’t have given any weight to interpretations by Catholic authors but as I progressed with the interpretations Evangelicals favored I began to encounter difficulties and contradictions that I was at a loss to explain (which I guess was the natural consequence of getting into the sort of detail that I felt incumbent upon a Bible teacher) whereupon I began to become uneasy about my position as an Evangelical. Eventually, as you know, I departed from the Evangelical world but it was only after I’d decided that “Biblical Christianity” was wayward that I was prepared to acknowledge that perhaps Catholicism wasn’t all wrong. And I still hold that view (although I definitely reject the whole notion of papal infallibility) but I now believe that Holy Orthodoxy is all right.

Ecumenically,
Mick

 

[Hebrew_Student]

JonNC,

The problem is that you are confusing “Scripture” with "The Bible. It’s playing with semantics.
Yes you are right in that the inspired Scriptures had been developing over the centuries before Christ. However not even all of the Jews agreed which should be included. I believe the Sadducees and Pharasees argued over whether the Prophets shoudl be included or just he Pentatuch.

You are confusing the Sadducees with the Samaritans, a Jewish cult. There was never any question between these two groups as to their view of what scripture was.

You are also right that some books were immedialteyl and widely accepted as inspired but others were not. However, that applies to “Scripture” and what we are talking about is “The Bible” which carries a specific meaning.

When one says "The Bible, or The Holy Bible, we connect that with a specific set of books including both the OT and the NT. We do not need to specify anything beyond this.
The Bible is the volume that contains the Scriptures that are accepted by Christians today.
That volume was assembled in its present form at teh Councils of Hippo and Carthage and approved by the Pope at the end of the 4th Century, that is, around 400 AD.
It was this canon that was translated by St Jerome into the Vulgate and remained unchanged until the Protestant Reformation 1100 years later.
This same canon was reaffirmed 7 times by various councils all before the Protestant reformation.
The declaration at Trent did not determine the canon of the Bible, it only “closed it” and this was only because of the tampering by the reformers.

However, you will have to admit that the Bible is made up of scripture. The issue in recognizing the Bible is is recognizing what is scripture and what is not scripture. Because that had been done without the Catholic Church, and God held people responsible for it long before any Catholic Church came along, we therefore do not need the Catholic Church to assemble anything. That’s the point.

Also, Hippo and Carthage came after Athanasius’ 39th festal letter. How did Athanasius know what the canon was without these councils?

Even worse, the councils of Hippo and Carthage gave a different canon that Trent. The issue has to do with the fact that Augustine and the North African councils used the Septuagint. However, Trent used the Vulgate, as they clearly say. In the Septuagint, 2 Esra is acually the books of Esra and Nehemiah, while 1 Esra is the apocryphal additions to Ezra and Nehemiah. However, when Jerome translated the Vulgate, he separated Esra and Nehemiah into 1 Esra and 2 Esra, and he put the apocryphal additions into 3 Esra. Hence, when Trent declared 1 Esra and 2 Esra to be canonical, but not 3 Esra, it was giving a different Canon from Trent.

Not only that, but if you are going to say that the council of Carthage was approved by the pope, now you are left with a problem that William Whitaker states:

But, if this decree of the number of the canonical books was legitimately approved, then that also concerning the title of high priest was confirmed by the same sanction, which yet they will by no means concede. How, then, will they divide these things? [William Whitaker. Disputations on Holy Scripture. p.41]

The point is that the decree of the high priest is something that Catholics do not accept that was found in the council of Carthage. If it was legitimately approved, then, also, teachings which the Catholic Church rejects were approved.

Thanks for the clarification. I apologize for not catching that.
Frankly I’m surprised more people haven’t said God is their teacher, or the Holy Spirit is.

No, we have more than one teacher. We are talking about who our infallible teacher is. There is a big difference. Within Protestantism, the church has authority. It just does not have infallible authority.

Are you sure that you wrote this correctly? You believe that a "Church’ founded in 1936 determined the NT???
I guess I’m confused here

No, I am arguing that we do not need a church to determine the canon, because the canon is determined by the fact that God has chosen to only inspire some books, and not all books., and, because of the fact that God’s people had already recognized what was scripture and what was not scripture long before Christ.

God Bless,
Adam

 

[mark_a]

It was a question, Mark, and a serious one. If I decided to become either Catholic or Orthodox, coming to the belief that The Augsburg Confession is wrong, which one do I choose? If I choose the wrong one, I’ve simply moved from wrong to wrong.

Then why not become a satanist?

Surely you don’t believe that all wrongs are equally wrong, do you?

No, I am, because I believe that, on balance, LCMS best adheres to the Lutheran Confessions, which is the measure of Lutheranism, not Luther himself.

My bad then.

I suppose the word Lutheranism is maybe almost as misunderstood by non-Lutherans as much as the word infallible is by non-Catholics.

 

[ababbidg]

JonNC,

No, I am arguing that we do not need a church to determine the canon, because the canon is determined by the fact that God has chosen to only inspire some books, and not all books., and, because of the fact that God’s people had already recognized what was scripture and what was not scripture long before Christ.

God Bless,
Adam

Who determined which books were inspired and which weren’t?

 

[SSTeacher]

I suppose the word Lutheranism is maybe almost as misunderstood by non-Lutherans as much as the word infallible is by non-Catholics.

mark,

In what way do you suppose non–Catholics misunderstand the word “infallible” in relation to the papacy? I reject the whole notion of papal infallibility based upon my understanding of it but I cordially invite you to put forward your understanding of it with a view to eradicating false ideas in non–Catholic minds.

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[JonNC]

=mark a;5444550]Then why not become a satanist?

Surely you don’t believe that all wrongs are equally wrong, do you?

Of course not, but why go from one wrong (that’s pretty right) to another wrong (that’s pretty right)? My point is there is no way for anyone to know conclusively which tradition is 100% right (assuming one is), and therefore, we must assume that the Holy Spirit uses all Christian traditions for salvation, knowing that His truth is usually (always?) mixed with our errors in understanding.

I suppose the word Lutheranism is maybe almost as misunderstood by non-Lutherans as much as the word infallible is by non-Catholics.

Perhaps so, but then, we’re not speaking ex-cathedra.
Jon

 

[SSTeacher]

My point is there is no way for anyone to know conclusively which tradition is 100% right (assuming one is), and therefore, we must assume that the Holy Spirit uses all Christian traditions for salvation, knowing that His truth is usually (always?) mixed with our errors in understanding.

Jon

Hi Jon,

That’s an interesting idea. Can I please use what you’ve declared above to start a new thread?

Fraternally,
Mick

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

That’s an interesting idea. Can I please use what you’ve declared above to start a new thread?

Fraternally,
Mick

Sure. Mick.

Cooperatively,
Jon

 

[Hebrew_Student]

ababbidg,

Who determined which books were inspired and which weren’t?

Reread what you quoted. God himself did, because he inspired some books, and not all books. God is the one who makes the final determination as to whether a book is inspired or not.

 

[Hebrew_Student]

Ooops, post #66 should have been addressed to JRKH.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5445429:

Hi Jon,

That’s an interesting idea. Can I please use what you’ve declared above to start a new thread?

Fraternally,
Mick

Sure. Mick.

Cooperatively,
Jon

Thanks, Jon. I’ve posted the new thread here in the Non–Catholic Religions forum. It’s titled, Is there a case for Universalism? See you on it, maybe?

Appreciatively,
Mick

 

[Sword_Brethren]

JonNC;5437923:

Episcopalians have apostolic succession (through the Dutch Touch of Utrecht) as well as those Lutherans you mentioned. ]

They do not have apostolic sucession.

 

[JonNC]

Thanks, Jon. I’ve posted the new thread here in the Non–Catholic Religions forum. It’s titled, Is there a case for Universalism? See you on it, maybe?

Appreciatively,
Mick

Well, Mick, I don’t think I’d consider my point universalism. Universalism, to me, implies that all will be saved and it really doesn’t matter what you believe. So, there’s no sense spending time on unimportant things like doctrine, and wasteful pursuits like ecumenism.
IOW, there is a complacency implied in universalism that I reject.

Jon

 

[ababbidg]

ababbidg,

Reread what you quoted. God himself did, because he inspired some books, and not all books. God is the one who makes the final determination as to whether a book is inspired or not.

And how do we know which ones He chose to be inspired?

 

[SSTeacher]

Well, Mick, I don’t think I’d consider my point universalism. Universalism, to me, implies that all will be saved and it really doesn’t matter what you believe. So, there’s no sense spending time on unimportant things like doctrine, and wasteful pursuits like ecumenism.
IOW, there is a complacency implied in universalism that I reject.

Jon

Jon,

I understand. So perhaps go on to that thread and state the case? I don’t want to derail this one.

Fearfully,
Mick