Why trust that the Bible is infallible...

[joe370]

A question for my non-Catholic friends:

Why trust that the Bible is infallible considering the fact that infallible Bible was bound and codified in the 4th century, by the CC, comprised of all fallible people? If the CC started adding things early on as many suggest, then certainly they had the means to add (include) - some books in the bible that were not meant to be in there, and the means to exclude some books that were meant to be in the bound codified Bible. How can we be certain that the CC did not alter the word of God, considering the fact that non-Catholics have no problem believing that the CC altered and added other things that reputedly, were not believed by the 1st century church?

 

[chaunceygardner]

A question for my non-Catholic friends:

Why trust that the Bible is infallible considering the fact that infallible Bible was bound and codified in the 4th century, by the CC, comprised of all fallible people? If the CC started adding things early on as many suggest, then certainly they had the means to add (include) - some books in the bible that were not meant to be in there, and the means to exclude some books that were meant to be in the bound codified Bible. How can we be certain that the CC did not alter the word of God, considering the fact that non-Catholics have no problem believing that the CC altered and added other things that reputedly, were not believed by the 1st century church?

Hi Joe, I see you are back at it again with questions for non-Catholics.

Thanks for making a very good case for the Bible NOT being inerrant and infallible. I think you have made some valid points that should be carefully considered. Everything you mention could have happened and likely did!

Thanks for being so open to these somewhat controversial ideas.

Best Wishes.

 

[Chris1112]

I’m new to the threads… is this a rhetorical questions meant to entice someone that isn’t Catholic into a discussion for the purpose of converting or is this a legitimate question? Its posted in the ‘Non-Catholic Religions’ thread so I’m not sure.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt… if this is a legtimate question…

I used to believe the Bible was infallible because it was the foundation of my faith as a protestant. I wasn’t a good protestant and my example doesn’t represent everyone… but just like you need to take a leap of faith in something… my leap of faith was in believing the Bible was infallible. I may be on a different route now, but from hindsight, it was just as a meaningful leap of faith to me back then as deciding to convert to Catholicism is a leap of faith to me now. I didn’t really have a need to question it because I had faith and factual history didn’t bother me anymore than the Spanish Inquisition likely bothers Catholics (meaning, it is a point of concern, but it doesn’t undermine a faith that is based on belief, not proof.)

Questions about ‘how can you trust it when’… or ‘how can you be certain,’ never bothered me. I had faith in God and his infallible word.

Anyway, that was how I approached it and just trying to be helpful if you’re really wondering about the issue.

 

[BrianH]

It is a thought process used by Catholics on this forum. Well SOME of them. I do not remember the Orthodox doing it.
It goes something like this: IF you believe the Bible is infallible then the only real reason is because of the Catholic Church.
Its a lay Catholic apologist thing I believe. I do not THINK the Catholic Church encourages or discourages this line of reasoning.
Its dangerous because I have seen it backfire. Someone who does not believe in an infallible Bible or does believe could easily agree with the OP and say to you know where with it then
Imagine getting to heaven and having to deal with the consequences of inadvertently talking someone out of their Christian faith

 

[joe370]

I’m new to the threads… is this a rhetorical questions meant to entice someone that isn’t Catholic into a discussion for the purpose of converting or is this a legitimate question?

A legitimate question.

Its posted in the ‘Non-Catholic Religions’ thread so I’m not sure.

Thanks so much for your (name removed by moderator)ut friend.

 

[Chris1112]

A legitimate question.

Oh, I feel very badly now. Sorry, Joe, I’m critical and not very tactful sometimes. My apologies, will try to be a better forum participant.

 

[BrianH]

Why trust that the Bible is infallible considering the fact that infallible Bible was bound and codified in the 4th century, by the CC, comprised of all fallible people? If the CC started adding things early on as many suggest, then certainly they had the means to add (include) - some books in the bible that were not meant to be in there, and the means to exclude some books that were meant to be in the bound codified Bible. How can we be certain that the CC did not alter the word of God, considering the fact that non-Catholics have no problem believing that the CC altered and added other things that reputedly, were not believed by the 1st century church?

In no particular order

There ARE a lot of people who think the Bible was altered. Think about it this way. Forget Bart Ehrman for a minute. We have translation committees who do what? Take the different existing older copies and try to reconcile them.

 

[joe370]

It is a thought process used by Catholics on this forum. Well SOME of them. I do not remember the Orthodox doing it.

I have no idea what you are talking about my friend.

I

t goes something like this: IF you believe the Bible is infallible then the only real reason is because of the Catholic Church.

Wow…That is what you think I am doing?

 

[joe370]

BrianH;6343746]In no particular order

There ARE a lot of people who think the Bible was altered.

I am not one of them. I believe that the holy bible is truly the inspired/infallible word of God

Think about it this way. Forget Bart Ehrman for a minute. We have translation committees who do what? Take the different existing older copies and try to reconcile them.

Sorry, I don’t know who Bart Ehrman is. I trust that the holy spirit guided (still guiding) - the church leadership, (founded by God on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, circa AD 33) - into all (revealed) - truth, including the codification of the holy bible.

 

[BrianH]

I am not one of them. I believe that the holy bible is truly the inspired/infallible word of God

Sorry, I don’t know who Bart Ehrman is. I trust that the holy spirit guided the church leadership, (founded by God on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, circa AD 33) - into all (revealed) - truth, including the codification of the holy bible.

You believe the ORIGINAL autographs are inspired. You recognize that the oldest copies contain textual variants. That translation committees take the different texts and use them to write current translations. So someone did change the original autographs somewhere along the way. You can drop the word altered if you like but they do differ.

 

[joe370]

Oh, I feel very badly now. Sorry, Joe, I’m critical and not very tactful sometimes. My apologies, will try to be a better forum participant.

That’s OK… I am just trying to learn and understand things from a non-Catholic perspective. Most of the questions I ask, are questions I could not answer, as a former Lutheran. BTW, I personally believe that all churches comprise the Mystical Body of Christ of which Jesus Christ is the Head and Savior.

 

[joe370]

Sorry, I don’t know who Bart Ehrman is. I trust that the holy spirit guided the church leadership, (founded by God on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, circa AD 33) - into all (revealed) - truth, including the codification of the holy bible.

You believe the ORIGINAL autographs are inspired. You recognize that the oldest copies contain textual variants. That translation committees take the different texts and use them to write current translations. So someone did change the original autographs somewhere along the way. You can drop the word altered if you like but they do differ.

Hey Brian…

I believe that the Bible, as well as the church founded by Jesus, that eventually codified the holy Bible in the 4th century, can be trusted, thanks to the ineffable/perpetual guidance of the Holy spirit.

 

[BrianH]

Lets try it this way: can you explain how textual variants could have occured without someone altering them? I did not say their intention for altering them but the fact we have textual variants attests to their existence.

 

[joe370]

Lets try it this way: can you explain how textual variants could have occured without someone altering them? I did not say their intention for altering them but the fact we have textual variants attests to their existence.

When I say altering, I am talking about the inclusion of whole books in the bible that shouldn’t have made the cut, (ie the Shepherd of Hermas or the apocalypse of Peter, etc. etc.) or excluding books from the bible that should have been included. Something Martin Luther attempted to do. I agree with you regarding textual variants.

 

[BrianH]

When I say altering, I am talking about the inclusion of whole books in the bible that shouldn’t have made the cut, (ie the Shepherd of Hermas or the apocalypse of Peter, etc. etc.) or excluding books from the bible that should have been included. Something Martin Luther attempted to do. I agree with you regarding textual variants.

Okay. Then lets drop that
Next question, were the books of the Bible “scripture” before the 4th century. Did even writers in the early second century call some of them scripture? Granted, not all of them but some of them? I understand we have limited existing literature left but the question should still be ok.

 

[joe370]

Which brings me back to my original question:

Why trust that the Bible is infallible considering the fact that infallible Bible was bound and codified in the 4th century, by the CC, comprised of all fallible people? I believe the answer is: the holy spirit is forever (Jon 14:16) - guiding the CC into all truth (at least revealed truth). John 16:13.

Brian, if the CC started adding things early on as many suggest, (Immaculate conception, purgatory) - then certainly they had the means to do the same with the holy bible by adding some books to the bible that were never meant to be in there, and the means to exclude some books that were absolutely meant to be in the bound, codified Bible. How can we be certain that the CC did not alter the word of God, considering the fact that non-Catholics have no problem believing that the CC altered and added other things that reputedly, were not believed by the 1st century church?

I’ve got to get some sleep, but i look forward to your response.

 

[joe370]

**

Okay. Then lets drop that

Next question, were the books of the Bible “scripture” before the 4th century.

Yup. Some were doubted in certain parts of the known world though until the CC collected, selected, compiled and finally codified the holy bible, and certainly no one had a bound, codified bible up to that point. .

Did even writers in the early second century call some of them scripture? Granted, not all of them but some of them? I understand we have limited existing literature left but the question should still be ok.**

Yup.

 

[BrianH]

So in the early second century some of the books were accepted as scripture.
Very good.
Did all Christians in the second century have the current Catholic understanding of Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception since you mentioned them?
Curiously, do the Orthodox even TODAY relying on Apostolic Sacred Tradition have the same beliefs?
I am REALLY glad you mentioned those two. Since most of our beliefs are the same, believe it or not, highlighting those things that are not and their patristic support (or not) is going to be very important:thumbsup:

 

[joe370]

In the early church the manuscripts were written either as a recording of oral stories and teachings or as original documents, and they were read, circulated, and revised within the each respective community, and certain manuscripts became accepted as authoritative scripture within certain communities;- different groups accepted different scriptures at this particular juncture.

These different scriptures were gathered together in single scrolls, codices, and later in books, and depending on where you lived, often determined how many of the books in our bible today, were read in the church. the physical manner of collecting the different scriptures also had an influence on canonical decision. Canon which, as you know, is a defined group of scriptures in a single collection, became accepted by a certain Christian community, and different Christian communities of course had different canons and this is why the book of Hebrews for example was rejected by many churches in the East.

Choosing the canon that makes up our Bible today, was not an easy process, and there were books that are not in the bible today, that were viewed as canonical in the early church, just as there are books included in our bible today that were not considered canonical in the early church . Accounts in Scripture hint at the early church problems, debates, and different interpretations:

James 4:1- 1 Timothy 6:3-4 - 2 Peter 2 - 2 John 2 - Jude 4 - Jude 8

 

[BrianH]

Joe are you using a Methodist website! Now thats progress
gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canons.stm