Extention of inerrancy of Scripture?....

I would like to see viewpoints on whether or not the inerrancy of Scripture would extend to the canon itself. Do we know the list of books to be inerrant? How so? etc... Based on the answers I would like to ask some follow-up questions.

God Bless

Stephen

 

Bill said:

Thanks Bill, and not to sound like the mutual admiration society, but I must commend you on your dilligent and vigorous defense of the Faith.

Keep it up!

And may the Lord himself one day say to you: "Well done, good and faithful servant."

Frank,
Thank you for your well thought-out response. I'm looking forward to a healthy and charitable exchange with someone as seemingly knowledgeable as yourself. (no knock against anyone intended!)

If I may address your last post then.

You wrote:

The first and obvious questions are then: How did God establish, and through whom, or by what method etc. did God establish the canon?

My understanding of the term "canon" may vary slightly from yours here. But I understand the canon to be

(p.43 Background to the Bible, Servant Books by. Richard T.A. Murphy, O.P.)
While the term canon comes from a term which originally referred to a reed (1Kgs 14:15) The reed being a tool for measurement and the word eventually came to mean a fixed rule or guide.
(i.e. canon of etiquette, of astronomy, of literature etc.)
So in your opening statement are you stating that the fixed rule (the canon) was established by God FOR inspiration. But was not necessarily a product of divine inspiration?

Your statement seems to me somewhat of ...(what do you call it) an oxymoron, in that: God created the canon but it wasn't inspired.

Since the thread topic is about the inerrancy of Scripture and I did ask whether or not the Canon could be extended this same assessment, it would certainly appear by your answer then that you would be denying that the canon was inspired by God. Yet, still was created (or as you stated established) by God. (hence the oxymoron)

By the way, can it be agreed upon that God would not establish, create, or cause to become extant anything in error or with error? In your case this alone would seem to point to the contention that the Canon is inerrant because as you said.."God established..."

Perhaps I've been too hasty in my trying to understand your comments. If so I sincerely apologize.
If my assessment is accurate,
How then is it we can with any assurance know the canon as being complete?
Or from the Protestant perspective: How do we know that the seven deuterocanonicals of the OT should not be included, since we cannot claim their to be an official list of books confirmed and inspired by the Holy Spirit to call the Bible?
And incidentally for those Protestants who might believe that the canon was inspired by God and is by that fact without error, by what mode did God communicate this inspired canon?

As to the rest of your post, you said:

This for the most part are reasons to believe in the inspiration of scripture, which I sincerely hope you understand is not in question.

The final sentence is the one note worthy statement in regard to the context of this thread. You said that " No one, or religious body can confirm what they espouse as inspired by the CANON of God.

But the Church claims the ability to confirm the Bible as the inspired "Word of God" not strictly as its right but as its DUTY. For the Bible and the Church go together. They are both objects of Faith. And Faith is both a gift and a duty.

Granted this duty stems from things you may not agree with, (i.e Christ establishing His Church, giving it authority, and promising to stay with her through the Holy Spirit forever -and this Church being the Roman Catholic Church) From our perspective it is still a most welcomed duty.

"God is unparalelled in AUTHENTICATING HIS WORD."

AMEN BROTHER!

And thank God that He chose His Church to communicate His authentication!

God Bless

Stephen

 

Frank said:

True, the Church is made up of those victorious or saved as well as those believers who are militant (that is working out their salvation in fear and trembling. Phil 2:12)and lastly those victorious yet being Purged of their sins. (Matt 5:26, Luke 12:59) But that's another thread.

Frank said:

And Herein lies the difference: We Catholics believe that the Church (through its leaders) does indeed speak for God on matters pertaining to faith and morals. Protestants have only their interpretation of Scripture to rely on. Which without an authoritative church as a guide could prove to be shaky ground (as opposed to "This Rock") as evidenced by thousands of differing Protestant proclivities.

This being the case and whether or not you are impressed with its claims the logic in regards to the acceptance of the Canon is in fact empirical.

Stated outright then the logic for both of our contentions could be stated as follows:
The RCC's:
The Church established by Christ is enabled by Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit to make infallible and binding (upon its adherents) decisions on matters of faith and morals and has by the Holy Spirit's guidance (and by necessity to counter the schemeing heretics) thus deemed it a matter of faith and morals to define and otherwise close the canon of scripture.

Whereas your logic would be:

The canon was established in an unidentified, unvalidateable, unconfirmed manner by God for the inspiration of man and has the witness of the divine standard of God through countless miracles to prove it is unvalidateable, and unconfirmable.

Frank continues;

The Church does just that by raising the dead through the sacrament of Baptism. (Rom. 6:4., 1 Cor. 15:29)By helping the "lame walk" again through the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Matt 9:5, Mark 2:9, Luke 5:23)An in the presence of unbelievers provides a tangible witness to the blind and wandering (Matt 5:14)

In short the Church has exactly what the Apostles had in the living, Word of God given as a guide for those who, like the original wish to take up their Cross.

God Bless and Good Night.

 

John said:

I agree, but I'm not sure to what you're referring to. That is at least in regard to this thread. Unless you are of course speaking in regard to the general world of exegesis.

That was a very good quote of the Church you provided; and as you pointed out very applicable.

Here is something I found relative to your statement, I've been using a book titled "Background to the Bible" by Richard T.A. Murphy, O.P.
The context was in regard to Vatican II's statements as somewhat a followup to the Dei Verbum document you quoted.
It reads:

God Bless
Stephen

 

Frank said,

Hang out for an Exorcism some time. Visit the Catholic shrines in Lourdes, Knock, or Fatima, and tell the thousands who have left their wheel chairs and crutches there that their healing was not a miracle. Or that their miracle came about not because of their faith but in spite of their Catholic faith.

Frank, you must have been a brilliant debater in school, you seem to use all the strategies.

The above sentence is pretty atypical stuff from debaters (namely imply that a "rational" as opposed to the unrational mind, "must conclude" )that tact is usually followed by the thought you hope in the presentation is swallowed completely. In this case the coupling of "the rational mind must conclude" is diametrically opposed to the ending of the statement which is "the ability to authenticate the word through miraculous confirmation does not exist". Because that is YOUR claim. The Bible does have many occurences of miracles affirming biblical truths, but nowhere do you find that it is a prerequisite. If so show me definitively, without all the precedeing conjecture of how a rational mind must conclude...

Besides if that was the case what miracles were there at the councils that officially defined and closed the canon? Surely these councils had the protection of infallibility or else you wouldn't be using the same NT that THEY defined and closed.

And if you prefer not to aknowledge the early Church councils established explicitly for the defining of the list of books to be considered the inspired Word of God (a response to the Marcion heresies)then perhaps you could define your own personal miracles that accompanied your own personal, and infallible acceptance of the books of the Bible.

Frank continues:

Sorry, you may have lost me there as Carson I believe is on vacation and has not partaken in this particular thread. You may be referring to Bill. But, never the less your favorite debator phrase of "the static standard of truth" seems best modified as perhaps "my personal static standard of truth". Afterall who would argue against an authentic static standard of Truth.

God Bless
Stephen

 

AC writes:

And would you be surprised to hear that a Catholic does believe that the flood literally took place (I believe it, and the Church grants me the leeway to believe it without being in error), Or 6 days of Creation (no problem...especially since God is not confined by the retraints of time.. a day is like a thousand years unto the Lord)
Spinning suns do nothing for me either, but spinning what the Church proclaims as miraculous is a different matter.

I actually believe you have never looked into the scrutiny process that the Church has established for its qualifying something as miraculous. You sound as if you believe a couple neat card tricks and an oxidizing rosary might qualify.

Thanks for you comments though.

God Bless

Stephen

 

Frank,

Thank you for your response.

You wrote:

First, what would you consider to be "collaborative evidence". As you've stated in the subsequent post (that I will also include a response to herein)you do have a fine grasp of the English language, I would not dare attempt to challenge you in that area.

However I don't understand the term "collaborative evidence", perhaps you meant "corroborative evidence"
and towards that end I'll cite first of all what the Church establishes as a general guideline in considering medical healings as being of a miraculous nature or not.

This issued in 1734:

THE CHURCH’S CRITERIA
From: De Servorum Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione
(liber IV, Cap. VIII, no. 2),
with commentaries up to the end of the chapter -
Author: Cardinal Prospero Lambertini,
future Pope Benedict XIV, 1734.
1.“ Primum est, ut morbus sit gravis, et vel impossibilis, vel curatu difficilis ” – Firstly, the disease should be serious, incurable or difficult to treat.
2.“ Secundum, ut morbus, qui depellitur, non sit in ultima parte status, ita ut non multo post declinare debeat ” – Secondly, the eradicated disease should not be in its final stage or at a stage whereby it may involve spontaneous recovery.
3.“ Tertium, ut nulla fuerint adhibita medicamenta, vel, si fuerint adhibita, certum sit, ea non profuisse ” – Thirdly, no drug should have been administered or, in the event that it has been administered, the absence of any effects should have been ascertained.
4.“ Quartum, ut sanatio sit subita, et momentanea ” – Fourthly, the recovery has to take place suddenly and instantly.
5.“ Quintum, ut sanatio sit perfecta, non manca, aut concisa ” – Fifthly, the recovery has to be perfect, and not defective or partial. 6.“ Sextum, ut nulla notatu digna evacuatio, seu crisis praecedat temporibus debitis, et cum causa; si enim ita accidat, tunc vero prodigiosa sanatio dicenda non erit, sed vel ex toto, vel ex parte naturalis ” Sixthly, it is necessary that any noteworthy excretion or crisis has taken place at the proper time, as a reasonable result of an ascertained cause, prior to the recovery; under these circumstances the recovery cannot be deemed prodigious, but totally or partially natural.
7.“ Ultimum, ut sublatus morbus non redeat ” – Lastly, it is necessary for the eradicated disease not to reappear. First of all it is crucial that the disease in question is a severe one, involving a serious prognosis, incurable or involving an uncertain treatment; these were the author’s words

Lourdes has their own review of supposed miracles that incorporate the criteria above and take into consideration some the newer scientific scrutinies as evidenced herein:
L.I.M.A. (Lourdes International Medical Committee )states;
In order to take into account the acknowledgement of a recovery, the premises of the following two fundamental aspects (which however need to be carefully distinguished) need to exist:
1. The abnormal fact: the phenomenon of recovery itself, which is characterised by its being absolutely unexpected and unexplainable, compared to ordinary medical predictions and to scientific literature data, and which will be subject to an in-depth medical analysis;
2. The sign: which leads to the belief of a special intervention by God, by intercession of Our Lady of Lourdes; this intervention has to be acknowledged by the Church, based on the report of the cured person. But at this stage, we also need to point out:
a) The definition of miracle: this is an extraordinary and exceptional event, which cannot be explained through today’s scientific knowledge;
b) The features of a miracle: this is a sudden or exceptionally rapid event, with permanent effects and no relapses, which can be assessed through a scientific and interdisciplinary methodology involving biology, forensic medicine, theology, etc.
c) The context in which the miracle occurs: historic age, documentation and iconography, taking place within catholic religion and not other religious beliefs and/or cultures, etc.;
d) The authority proclaiming the miracle: after the favourable judgement passed by the CMIL (Comité Médical International de Lourdes), this is the ecclesiastic ordinary of the diocese of origin or another authoritative representative of the Church.
After 1977, following the proposal put forward by Mgr. Donze (who has recently died) to reword the rules laid down by Benedict XIV in the light of nowadays’ scientific and technological innovations, a 16 query scheme prepared by the LIMC was laid down; among other things, this introduced the need to rule out any psychopathic component, as well as any other subjective pathologic statea or manifestationa (which are therefore not verifiable), hence only taking into account the recovery acknowledgements relating to serious and provable affections, the only ones that could be deemed as “scientifically inexplicable”. And therefore, in this case it will be possible to close the medical report supporting a “certain and medically unexplainable” recovery, only when:
1) The diagnostics and authenticity of the disease has been preliminarily and perfectly assessed;
2) The prognosis provides for an impending or short-term fatal outcome;
3) The recovery is sudden, without convalesce, and absolutely complete and final;
4) The prescribed treatment cannot be deemed to have resulted in a recovery or in any case could have been propitiatory for the purposes of recovery itself.

All this to prove that the Church has a way through "corroboration" that miracles do still occur and are acknowledged by the Church. But this is not to say that these miracles are to be viewed as proving divine inspiration of Church pronouncements. But then again that HAS NEVER been my claim.
As you are probably aware the Church sees no need in declaring a "miracle" something that "must be believed", its more that believing in one proclaimed by the Church presents nothing that is contrary to the deposit of Faith the Church so scrupulously protects. In short believing the proclaimed miracle is authentic is not contrary to the Faith nor is it part of a defined dogma to be necessarily held.

Frank, you have accused me of making unsubstanciated claims: This must be a fovorite phrase of yours as I've seen you use it one time with another.
Just what claim of mine is unsubstanciated?

I never claimed that miracles MUST accompany inspired Church pronouncements that was YOUR, as yet UNSUBSTANCIATED claim:

I asked of you specifically:

Yes you have a firm grasp of the English language, but a somewhat manipulative effect of using it.

It is a debators ploy to use terms such as "unsubstanciated" when characterizing their opponents claims. But the ONLY thing UNSUBSTANCIATED is YOUR claim.
The proof of this is in that the initial request still remains unanswered:
Show me definitively in Scripture that " Anyone who claimed he was speaking by inspiration must prove it by the miraculous manifestations of the Holy Spirit." (italics: mine, Quote: YOURS)

It is not enough to show that signs and wonders did accompany such teaching, as your statement is that it MUST accompany.
I'll provide the format if you prefer Just fill in the info:
Book:00 Chapter:00 Verse:00
(I've seen someone use this ploy before )

Or if you prefer I'll start the Scripture requested as your proof: "Truly, Truly I say unto you that unless ALL official pronouncements of My Church are accompanied by miraculous cures or the raising of the dead, handling of serpents etc. etc. then they shant be deemed divinely inspired..."

The gospel of Frank is your ONLY hope. And the authoritative Church whose pronouncements you reluctantly accept in the defining and closing of the NT Scripture does not include this gospel.

Please don't answer with some long prose on challenging somebody to raise the dead, as that is obviously not part of anybody's claims of being a prerequisite but YOURS.

My claims are that the Church still recognizes the gifts of the Holy Spirit and has a certain scrutiny in place that goes far beyond any other denominations process for doing so in regard to miraculous claims. In short Miracles exist, they can and have been corroborated, but they are not a neccesity to making official and inspired pronouncements.

Your second post includes:

Even I, in my inferior grasp of the English language can pick out this mighty, mighty flaw of logic in your claim to having answered the question.

See if you can pick it out, and start with the word "required". And notice how, while all of the samples of Scripture you quote are signs utilized by Christ and His Apostles and disciples that NO WHERE do we find it being "a required" prerequisite.

Which I've asked you to provide specifically.

It's your claim, the burden of proof is on you.

Besides if your logic was true then those that have faith "must" move mountains. As Matt 17:20 has Jesus saying: " I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there'and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you"
By you logic someone with even a small amount of faith must move mountains.
There are a lot of mountains in North Georgia, but I haven't heard of any being moved lately, yet I don't doubt you or anyone specifically in N. Georgia has faith.

I consider it a feeble attempt at diverting the subject to one of your choosing. (And a "straw man" at that)to say that my "claims" are unsubstanciated.

And since you did not answer this previously I'll post it again:

God Bless
Stephen