Why do you believe the bible?

[Stephen III]

(Sorry for the length, I guess the moderators will not accept one post that is this long -I tried!)

THE CATHOLIC PERSPECTIVE FROM THE THREAD WOULD BE:

I believe the Scriptures in my bible are the Word of God because I believe that the canon (the list of Scriptures which are divinely inspired) has been divinely revealed through the Church which Christ founded, the Church which is the pillar and foundation of truth. The Church supports the authority of the Scriptures (and Tradition), and the Scriptures (and Tradition) support the authority of the Church.

I also believe that divine revelation is the only acceptable reason for belief in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. I don't believe any reasoning which derives solely from human experience or thought is enough to assure the divine inspiration of Scripture.

The whole point of this thread is to show the folly of those who make the claim that a book (whether it is the Bible or the Koran, the Book of Mormon etc. can prove the fact of its being the inspired Word of God. A book cannot make this claim in and of itself. Otherwise ANY book could make this same claim. Granted every inspired Christian will clamor that this book is different, and indeed it is, but it is exactly circular reasoning to say that the Bible proves the claim for and of itself.

It takes an outside authority to tell us that the Bible is the Word of God.

if it was OK to "correct" (remove quotes if you're non-Catholic ) the canon 1500 years after Christ, who is to say it won't be OK to "correct" it again, tomorrow or next year or next century?

the point is sufficiently made that an outside authority is required to make the claim as to the Bible being the inspired Word of God. Just as it took an outside authority to define the canon in the first place.
And whether Protestants are willing to admit this fact or not won't change the historical fact that they themselves through their "committees" played the outside authority in changing the canon as they saw fit.

I think besides all these quotes being tedious to read, they patently show the mental gymnastics Protestants must perform to deny the logical conclusion that a Church or governing body (if you prefer) is NECESSARY just to get the Canon. Not to even mention for instruction towards a proper translation.

You see what most Protestants reading this thread may have overlooked is the fact that this thread is really about the implied authority of Sola-Scriptura.

I won't bother getting into an acceptable definition of the term for everyone. Let's leave it at SOLA = one, only
Scriptura = Scriptures

And if Scriptures are the Sole (or only)authority then where in the Bible do we find:
1.) The Canon
and,
2.) The right to include and exclude certain books (as seen in the issuance of the KJV)

Hope this helps,

God Bless
Stephen

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Stephen III:
Thanks DHK!,

The article was very detailed and I appreciate the effort you placed in finding this.

The emphasis I guess I was looking for was not so much on whether the books belonged or not.
That perhaps could be a separate thread.

But in keeping with the gist of this thread, I would like to know a Protestants perspective of the authority to include or exclude the books. From where does this authority derive?

This has been the core of your question from the very beginning. Who has the authority to include or exclude the Apocrypha from the Bible. Quite frankly, nowadays it is the publishers. One can find a "protestant" KJV Bible with the apocrypha included. The Apostolic Church publishes one. But as I said previuosly, and is quoted above, we do not consider them inspired wheter they are included in the pages of the Bible or not. Look again at the first paragraph quoted:

Another objection to the KJV concerns the Apocrypha. When first published, the Apocrypha was placed between the Old and New Testament.
This was common for English Bibles in those days. However, the KJV translators did not consider the Apocrypha inspired Scripture. They placed it between the Testaments, indicating that they regarded it valuable only as historical record and for edification, not for doctrine. The same is true of other early English versions. For example, on the opening page of the Apocrypha in the Geneva Bible we read:

These books that follow in order after the prophets unto the New Testament are called Apocrypha--that is, books which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church, neither yet served to prove any point of Christian religion, save inasmuch as they had the consent of the other Scriptures called canonical to confirm the same, or rather whereon they were grounded; but as books preceding from godly men, [which] were received to be read for the advancement and furtherance of the knowledge of the history, and for the instruction of godly manners: which books declare that at all times God had an especial care of His Church, and left them not utterly destitute of teachers and means to confirm them in the hope of the promised Messiah; and also witness that those calamities that God sent to His Church were according to His providence, who had both so threatened by His Prophets, and so brought it to pass for the destruction of their enemies, and for the trial of his children. [15]

Likewise, the translators of the KJV did not give the Apocrypha the respect they had given the Holy Scriptures. Their relative disregard for these books is not expressed in an explicit disclaimer, as in the Geneva Bible, but can be seen in the way they are presented in the first edition of 1611.

Emphatically the writer says that the apocrypha was inserted for the reader's enjoyment, for history, etc. It is not part of the inspired canon. In other words it is not Scripture.
DHK

 

[WPutnam]

DHK commented in his last line:

Emphatically the writer says that the apocrypha was inserted for the reader's enjoyment, for history, etc. It is not part of the inspired canon. In other words it is not Scripture.

Are you saying that the translators of the KJV had the authority to declare the "apocrypha" as simply "interesting reading" as opposed to the additon of same (which we call the deuterocanonicals) by the Church in the late 3rd century as bona fide inspired scripture?

If you deny the authority of the Catholic Church (the church who did this in the 3rd century) to do this, whence comes the authority of the KJV interpretors to declare them as you state?

Just curious....

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima Christi -

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.

 

[Frank]

The Bible is the expressed will of God. It is the ONE and ONLY BOOK CONFIRMED by the MIRACULOUS POWER of the HOLY SPIRIT. John 14:26;15:26:16:13, Luke 24:44-51, Acts 2:1-14,17, John 20:30,31, John 11:47,Acts 20:9-11;8:17,18, II Cor. 12:12.

This evidence is irrefutable. Luke writes in Acts 1:1-8, The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
2  Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
3  To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
4  And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
5  For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
6  ¶When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7  And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
8  But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
The reason one should reject other religious leaders who claim they teach by inspiration or their document is inspired is obvious. They DONOT MEET GOD'S STANDARD FOR INSPIRATION. They cannot perform Biblical miracles. Tis one fact haunts every charlatan that claims his teaching is inspired and his books are confirmed as the word of God. They simply cannot prove it by the standard God requires. These groups whomever they may be are simply liars as per Rev. 2:2.

All these questions about inspiration and the Bible have been answered by many infallible proofs. The testimonies of hostile and friendly witnesses to these events have stood the test of time and investigation by many from all walks of life. It is one thing to doubt or question a thing to be true. It is a different matter to prove one's contention is true.

It is really a sad thing to see so many believe these soothsayers without the PROOF God requires. Ignorance is not bliss!!!

 

[Doubting Thomas]

For the Catholics (who have made some good points, by the way, pointing out some of the circular arguements of the Protestants):

How do you know that this "Church" you say gave you the Bible is the correct Church and is reliable? How do you know it's claims are true?

Just curious.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by WPutnam:

If you deny the authority of the Catholic Church (the church who did this in the 3rd century) to do this, whence comes the authority of the KJV interpretors to declare them as you state?

Who gave the Catholic Church authority to change the Bible? It wasn't Christ. It wasn't Peter. And don't give me that Peter and the keys garbage. The Catholic Church's existence began in the fourth century and has no more power to change the canon of the Bible (which they did), then the J.W.'s had to corrupt it (which they did).

The apocrypha is Old Testament. The Old Testament was canonized around 450 B.C. One of the prerequisites for a book to be included in the canon of Scripture was that it had to be written pre-400. That leaves out all of the Apocrypah. Even the Septuagint was translated in 250 B.C. All of the Apocryphal books are dated after the Septuagints. They are fraudulent, never accepted by the Jews, never referred to in the New Testament, never referred to be the Apostles, never referred to be the early Christians, and most of all, never referred to by Christ.
They were totally rejected by the Jews, and are not in the Jewish Old Testament to this day. Neither are they in ours. That Jesus did not accept the Apocrypha is clear from Luke 24:44

44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Jesus in that verse referred to the three divisions of the Old Testament as the Jews knew them. The Torah or Books of Moses, The Prophets which included the historical books, and "the writings," which included all the poetical books.
No mention is made of the Apocrypha because he did not believe they were inspired books.
DHK

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
For the Catholics (who have made some good points, by the way, pointing out some of the circular arguements of the Protestants):

How do you know that this "Church" you say gave you the Bible is the correct Church and is reliable? How do you know it's claims are true?

Just curious.

Sir, I would normally not reply to a question that follows a question but I will make an exception here, since you are a different person from whom I was addressing.

And it is a fair question, doc!

And actually, it is quite hard to reply to! I therefore fall back on the one who I think makes the best case for the argument of how we deternime the inspired nature of Holy Writ.

I give you the following link for your reading pleasure:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

One can make the case that it all falls back on faith, I suppose, almost a faith that is circular in it's reasoning. But I find Karl Keating's "spiral argument" quite interesting in the link above.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima Christi -

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.

 

[Stephen III]

Let's see if I can make this easier by a multiple choice question:

We know the Bible is the inspired Word of God because?

A.) The bible says it is.

B.) The claims made in the Bible have been proven. (whether in individual's lives or larger phophesies etc.)

C.) The Holy Spirit has led me/us to be inspired by the Bible and therefore it must be the inspired Word of God.

D.) The Church has said it, therefore I believe it to be.

E.) All of the above.

A Catholic's answer would most likely be "E".
I believe the Protestant answer to be a variety of A-thru-C, or A,B, and C.
The answer "D" is the easy one for them to EXCLUDE.

To the Catholic, A thru C, (without "D") are statements that would bring the knowledge of the bible being the inspired Word of God into the relative sense. In that other books could make the same claims (as they do!). A book cannot be self-validating.
It is therefore a NECESSITY for an outside authority to validate the Bible as being the Word of God. And for that authority to do so infallibly, and definitively. And just as A-C are no less true they are now not relative to the individuals interpretation of the claims WITHIN the Bible itself. Or by an individuals claim to the life-changing effects of Scripture. (as we are human and susceptible of back-sliding, sinning, falling from grace etc.)

This aknowledgement does however invite the scrutiny of the source of authority residing in the Church to infallibly, and definitively make the claim of the Bible's devine inspiration.

Which is of course welcome and a logical conclusion. And as the possesor of Divine Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the Catholic Church has withstood much scrutiny and worse both from within and from without for two millenia.
The Bible remains the Church's greatest possesion. And mankind has been blessed because the Catholic Church sought to define its' scriptures and placed them under one cover for all.

The reason then I've brought up the fact that the original KJV included the deuterocanonicals and then subsequent versions excluded the books, was to show that while Protestants claim that the Church has no authority in definitively confirming the Bible's divine inspiration etc., they in practice do acknowledge an outside authority in what even constitutes Holy Scripture.

If an outside authority (in this case the publishers or committees who issued the original/subsequent KJV) had no authority to define the Canon of their versions; why then do today's Protestants accept the committees conclusions? And what if someone (individually or collectively with others) decided that they needed more books to make up what should "constitute" Holy Scripture. By the Protestants own reasoning they would have a logical right of doing so.

The protestants today I'm sure see no problem with the understanding that the New Testament Canon is closed. The question remains: by who's definition?
Incidentally, Since the Jews never definitively closed the canon of the Old Testament, how do we know the canon is closed there as well?
(Please don't say the Jamnia meeting, which had no legal authority, was a school and not a council, and was a response to the growing "cult" of Christianity, and these Christians use of the Torah or Law, books of Wisdom, the Propheticals and what eventually became known as the deuterocanonicals etc.)
It's an all-together separate thread to discuss the interesting fact that many Protestants side with these anti-Christian Jews in their views of the OT canon.

I'll conclude with a statement that we are a People of the Book, and the Book receives it's validation from the Body of Believers that make up the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ from the Catholic perspective is obviously made-up of a hierarchy, a holy priesthood and the individuals in full communion with the one Holy and Catholic and Apostolic Church...

God Bless,

Stephen

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by WPutnam:

One can make the case that it all falls back on faith, I suppose, almost a faith that is circular in it's reasoning. But I find Karl Keating's "spiral argument" quite interesting in the link above.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Bill,

That's a pretty good link. I've just had enough time to skim it, but I agree with the strategy: The "Spiral Argument". I feel this effectively avoids the charge of circularity for the reasons Keating outlined. However, there are forms of the spiral argument that lead to the conclusion that the Bible is the inspired Word of God without concluding that the Church of Rome is THE infallible church, let alone that the Roman Pontiff is himself infallible.

God Bless,

(Peace to you, too)

DT

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
The apocrypha is Old Testament. The Old Testament was canonized around 450 B.C. One of the prerequisites for a book to be included in the canon of Scripture was that it had to be written pre-400.

Can you expand on this?

Who canonized the OT?

By what authority?

Ron

 

[DHK]

The Apocryphal Books.

These books derive their name from a Greek word, apokruphos, which means "hidden." They are so called because they are,--(1) hidden; (2) of unknown authority; (3) spurious. They were not recognized as inspired books by the Jews, who regarded them, however as having high authority, and held them in high esteem as being a valuable history of their nation. Although they were carefully distinguished from the canonical Scriptures, their use was not only allowed, but many of them are quoted in Talmudical writings. They were given a place by themselves in the sacred volume, but with the distinct statement that they were not to be regarded as of equal authority with the books of the canon, their position being between the Old and New Testaments. We find them in some Bibles to-day--especially in Roman Catholic Bibles, since they are regarded by the roman church as inspired books.

The Apocrypha contains fourteen books, namely, 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the rest of Esther, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Song of the Three Children, the Story of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Manasses, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. it is true that by some of the fathers of the Christian church a few of these books have been quoted as canonical, but they were not looked on in this light; nor were their titles included in any list of canonical writings during the first four centuries after the birth of our Lord. It was not, indeed, until the Council of Trent, in 1545, that they were definitely declared to be an integral portion of Holy Scripture as acknowledged by the Romish church. "Philo," says Angus, "never quotes them as he does the sacred Scriptures; and Josephus expressly excludes them. The Jewish church never received them as part of the canon, and they are never quoted either by our Lord or by His apostles; a fact the more striking as St. Paul twice quotes heathen poets. It is remarkable, too, that the last inspired prophet closes his predictions by recommending to his countrymen the books of Moses, and intimates that no other messenger is to be expected by them till the coming of the second Elijah (Mal. 4:4-6) * * * Internal evidence, moreover, is against their inspiration. Divine authority is claimed by none of the writers, and by some it is virtually disowned (2 Mac. 2:23; 15:38). The books contain statements at variance with history (Baruch 1:2, compared with Jer. 43:6,7), self-contradictory, and opposed to the doctrines and precepts of Scripture."

For what, then, can the Apocryphal books be esteemed useful? In the Church of England some parts of them are read "for example of life and instruction of manners, but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine." By no Protestant church are these writings held to be the rule of faith, and contrasted with the canonical books, they are utterly without authority. From a historical point of view they are of value in showing the condition of the Jewish people, and relating certain events that intervene between the closing of the Old Testament and the opening of the Christian era.

These facts sufficiently indicate the course of the argument by which the canonicity of the sacred Scriptures is proved. Let it be proven that these books were written by the men whose names they bear, and that these men wrote under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, and the canonicity of the Bible is a settled fact. We have, therefore, a right to believe that we have in our Bible a rule of faith and life--yea, the supreme and ultimate rule--by which we may govern our lives in order that they may be in accordance with the revealed will of God.

http://www.anabaptists.org/history/howwegot.html

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WPutnam:

If you deny the authority of the Catholic Church (the church who did this in the 3rd century) to do this, whence comes the authority of the KJV interpretors to declare them as you state?

Who gave the Catholic Church authority to change the Bible? It wasn't Christ.</font>[/QUOTE]Read carefully, Matthew 16:19....

"Whatsoever you bind on earth, is bound in heaven; whatsoever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven." (parapharased)

Now, I certainly do not see a specific claim here that the Catholic Church is given authority to "change the bible," but authority I do see.

So then, sir, how do you reconsile the fact that the Church, in the 3rd century, not only "wrote" the New Testament (her "Charter clergy" in the apostles) but determined the New Testament? Who gave her the authority to exclude, for example, the following "competing" books that were contenpory in those early apostolic times:

The Acts of Andrew
The Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew
The Acts of Andrew and Matthew
The Acts of Barnabas
The Epistle of Barnabas (thought to be inspired by some.)
The martyrdom of Bartholomew
The Gospel of Bartholomew
The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The First Apocalypse of James
The Second Apocalypse of James
The Gospel of James
The Apocryphon of James
The epistle of James (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The first epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The second epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The third epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The Revelation of John (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of John
The Book of John Concerning the Death of Mary
The Apocryphon of John
The Epistle to the Laodiceans
The Mystery of the Cross
The epistle of Jude (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Luke.)
The Acts of the Apostles (Unsigned, but thought to be by Luke.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Mark.)
The Secret Gospel of Mark
The Passing of Mary
The Apocalypse of the Virgin
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Matthew.)
The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew
The Martyrdom of Matthew
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
The Epistle of Paul to the Romans
The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
The Second Epistle of Paul to Corinthians
The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians
The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians
The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians
The Epistle of Paul to the Colossians
The First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians
The Second Epistle of Paul to Thessalonians
The First Epistle of Paul to Timothy
The Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy
The Epistle of Paul to Titus
The Epistle of Paul to Philemon l
The Epistle to the Hebrews (Thought to be by Paul, but non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of Paul
The Acts of Paul and Thecla
The Apocalypse of Paul
The Revelation of Paul
The Vision of Paul
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul
The Correspondence of Paul and Seneca
The first epistle of Peter
The second epistle of Peter (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of Peter
The Acts of Peter and Andrew
The Acts of Peter and Paul
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles
The Apocalypse of Peter
The Revelation of Peter
The Gospel of Peter
The epistle of Peter to Philip
The Acts of Philip
The Gospel of Philip
The Revelation of Stephen
The Acts of Thomas
The Consummation of Thomas
The Apocalypse of Thomas
The Gospel of Thomas
The Book of Thomas the Contender
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp
The Epistle of Ignatius to Mary at Neapolis
The Epistle of Ignatius to St. John the Apostle
The Second Epistle of Ignatius to St. John the Apostle
The Epistle of Ignatius to Hero, A deacon of Antioch
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians
The Second epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Virgin Mary
The Reply of the Virgin Mary to Ignatius
The Epistle of Maria the Proselyte to Ignatius
An Arabic Infancy Gospel
Community Rule
Excerpts from Pistis Sophia
Fragments of Papias
Justin on the Resurrection
Justin on the sole government of God
Justin's Discourse to the Greeks-1
Justin's Hortatory Address to the Greeks
Other Fragments from the Lost Writing of Justin
The Acts of John the Theologian
The Acts of Thaddaeus
The Apocalypse of Adam
The Apocalypse of Sedrach
The Avenging of the Saviour
The Correspondence of Jesus and Abgar
The Death of Pilate
The Didache (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Adrian in behalf of the Christians
The Epistle of Antoninus
The Epistle of Marcus Aurelius to the Senate
The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus
The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
The Epistle of the Apostles
The First Apology of Justin
The Giving Up of Pontius Pilate
The Gospel of Mary
The Gospel of Nicodemus
The Gospel of the Lord
The History of Joseph the Carpenter
The Letter of Pontius Pilate to the Roman Emperor
The Martydom of Polycarp
The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
The Report of Pilate to Caesar
The Report of Pilate to Tiberius
The Report of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius
The Revelation of Esdras
The Revelation of John the Theologian
The Revelation of Moses
The Revelation of Stephen
The Second Apology of Justin
The Shepherd of Hermas (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Sophia of Jesus Christ
The Teachings of Addeus the Apostle
The Three Steles of Seth

Now, take a look at your New Testament and notice the absence of these books! So, my question to you is, if you accept the way your New Testament is, as canonized by the very church you are so suspicious of, then notice the thin ice you stand on when you consider your Bible to be the sole source for your faith, doctrines and moral authority.

Christ, while he was with the apostles in the flesh, did not command the apostles to write a thing! What Christ did was establish a church from which a platform was established therefore the apostles could "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit" per Matthew 28:19.

It wasn't Peter. And don't give me that Peter and the keys garbage. The Catholic Church's existence began in the fourth century and has no more power to change the canon of the Bible (which they did), then the J.W.'s had to corrupt it (which they did).

No, it was not Peter, but it was on Peter the church was established!

"Garbage," you say? If that is the way you feel about it, then perhaps yoou should cut-out from your bible, Matthew 16:18-19?

Boy, what thin ice you stand on, wanting to pick and choose from scripture what you accept and what you do not accept!

Also, would you like me to show you the writings of the early church fathers who wrote prior to 4th century? They embarsssingly indicate Catholicism through and through, even while Constantine was not even born yet!

The apocrypha is Old Testament.

I agree! I agree!

The Old Testament was canonized around 450 B.C.

By whom? I'm serious, I want to learn something...

One of the prerequisites for a book to be included in the canon of Scripture was that it had to be written pre-400.

Er, ah, by the Jewish council of Jamnia? And all this time, I thought the authority that was in the Jewish old covenant expired, and the Christians were then in the new covenant with all the authority of Christ!

Oh, and by the way, the Jews, fearing the uprising of Christianity, simply discounted anything written in Greek! So not only did they discount the Septuagint they discounted all of the New Testament writings as well!

That leaves out all of the Apocrypah. Even the Septuagint was translated in 250 B.C. All of the Apocryphal books are dated after the Septuagints. They are fraudulent, never accepted by the Jews, never referred to in the New Testament, never referred to be the Apostles, never referred to be the early Christians, and most of all, never referred to by Christ.

As I understand it, the apostles adopted the Septuagint as the "Christian Old Testament" very early on, and thus included it in their Old Testament canon, awaiting the time when a new book would be written, compiled, canoniced and declared divinely inspired "God breathed" scripture, the NEW TESTAMENT, all done by the authority of the only church around in the later 3th century - The Catholic Church.

They were totally rejected by the Jews, and are not in the Jewish Old Testament to this day. Neither are they in ours. That Jesus did not accept the Apocrypha is clear from Luke 24:44

Of course the Jews rejected them! They wanted nothing at all to do with the new upstart Christian religion, and anything Greek that they held to had to be rejected!

44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Of course! To prove to the reticent Jews that He was indeed, the Messiah predicted to come! Notice that as He spoke those words, they were oral only, which Luke later written down...some time after Pentecost, where there was no New Testament!

Jesus in that verse referred to the three divisions of the Old Testament as the Jews knew them. The Torah or Books of Moses, The Prophets which included the historical books, and "the writings," which included all the poetical books.
No mention is made of the Apocrypha because he did not believe they were inspired books.
DHK

Nonsense! I see nothing of the kind! But if you insist, you then must reject those books in the Old Testament, in your Protestant bible, that Christ does not refer to in this quote.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WPutnam:

One can make the case that it all falls back on faith, I suppose, almost a faith that is circular in it's reasoning. But I find Karl Keating's "spiral argument" quite interesting in the link above.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Bill,

That's a pretty good link. I've just had enough time to skim it, but I agree with the strategy: The "Spiral Argument". I feel this effectively avoids the charge of circularity for the reasons Keating outlined. However, there are forms of the spiral argument that lead to the conclusion that the Bible is the inspired Word of God without concluding that the Church of Rome is THE infallible church, let alone that the Roman Pontiff is himself infallible. </font>[/QUOTE]Hey! I would not mind seeing those arguments, if is convenient for you to produce and post.

Anyway, glad you saw the value in that link...

BTW, to be fair, James R. White argues against Keating on this paper, albeit not effectively, in my opinion. He is a prominant Protestant (Reformed) apologist in the internet and quite envolved in formal public debates with Catholic apologists.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Bill,

Yeah, I'm not a huge James White fan, primarily because I'm not a Calvinist.

At any rate, a book written by a BAPTIST which does a fine job describing the interrelationship between Church, Tradition, and Scripture is D.H.Williams' Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism. Mr. Williams actually used to teach Patristics at Loyolla in Chicago. Keith Mathison's book The Shape of Sola Scriptura is also pretty decent.

In terms of the "spiral argument" (though not necessarily called that), Norman Geisler has some good apologetic books. He basically uses the same reasoning as Keating, starting with the reliability of Gospels then establishing the claims of Christ and the truth of the resurrection. He then argues that Christ promised the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into all truth thus setting the stage for the New Testament.

And of course, there's the Orthodox who would (or could) use similar arguments as Rome in establishing a rationale for accepting the Bible as God's Word.

Oh well, my company has arrived so I'm outta here...

Peace.

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
Bill,

Yeah, I'm not a huge James White fan, primarily because I'm not a Calvinist.

At any rate, a book written by a BAPTIST which does a fine job describing the interrelationship between Church, Tradition, and Scripture is D.H.Williams' Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism. Mr. Williams actually used to teach Patristics at Loyolla in Chicago. Keith Mathison's book The Shape of Sola Scriptura is also pretty decent.

In terms of the "spiral argument" (though not necessarily called that), Norman Geisler has some good apologetic books. He basically uses the same reasoning as Keating, starting with the reliability of Gospels then establishing the claims of Christ and the truth of the resurrection. He then argues that Christ promised the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into all truth thus setting the stage for the New Testament.

But how would we know, outside of Scripture, that Christ made this promise? Furthermore, it was not the apostles who determined the canon of Scripture, for they had been dead for centuries before the canon was fixed.

And of course, there's the Orthodox who would (or could) use similar arguments as Rome in establishing a rationale for accepting the Bible as God's Word.

But there was no Rome/Orthodox split when the canon was fixed. It was all the same Church.

I think, to answer your question about how can we know that the Catholic Church is THE Church in the spiral argument, that one would have to provide evidence of another Church (call it the True Church, assuming you don't believe the CC is such) that independently fixed the canon of Scripture. We know historically that the Catholic Church did this, and I'm not aware of any evidence of another Church that independently arrived at any canon, much less the same canon as the CC.

Of course, if you argue that the Catholic Church was the True Church when it fixed the canon, but that afterwards it apostasized, then it can never have been the True Church to begin with. Perhaps it was in apostacy when it fixed the canon also!

 

[WPutnam]

MikeS commented:

Of course, if you argue that the Catholic Church was the True Church when it fixed the canon, but that afterwards it apostasized, then it can never have been the True Church to begin with. Perhaps it was in apostacy when it fixed the canon also!

Keep that up, Mike, and you are going to get them all twisted-up in knots!

You make a devastating point: In the latter part of the 3rd century, there was only one church. There was no other, until about the 9th century with the Orthodox schism, then the Protestant revolt in the 16rth century.

But if that "wascally ole' church" is so suspect in her "devious ways," then what say ye of the reliability of the Protestant bible, which, except for the deuterocanonicals, their New Testament is identical to the Catholic canon of scripture.

If that doesn't kill Sola Scriptura, I don't know what will...

Sorry to be "preaching to the choir," but others are reading...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christ has no body now but yours;
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world.
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good.
Yours are the hands with which
he blesses all the world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours.

- St. Therese of Avila -

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
Bill,

Yeah, I'm not a huge James White fan, primarily because I'm not a Calvinist.

At any rate, a book written by a BAPTIST which does a fine job describing the interrelationship between Church, Tradition, and Scripture is D.H.Williams' Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism. Mr. Williams actually used to teach Patristics at Loyolla in Chicago. Keith Mathison's book The Shape of Sola Scriptura is also pretty decent.

In terms of the "spiral argument" (though not necessarily called that), Norman Geisler has some good apologetic books. He basically uses the same reasoning as Keating, starting with the reliability of Gospels then establishing the claims of Christ and the truth of the resurrection. He then argues that Christ promised the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into all truth thus setting the stage for the New Testament.

And of course, there's the Orthodox who would (or could) use similar arguments as Rome in establishing a rationale for accepting the Bible as God's Word.

Oh well, my company has arrived so I'm outta here...

Peace.

Thank you sir!

I'll have to keep those books in mind. I have one book by Geisler, so perhaps I will take a look and see what he says.

What I do wonder about is, somewhere in that "spiral logic," there must be an earthly authority that is able to them boot strap the divine inspiration of the scriptures it canonizes by the authority given to it by Christ. Thus I think it would be a more difficult job for a Baptist to do this, let alone the rest of Protestantism.

But I will reserve judgment until I see what theey wrote...

Oh, and one more thing: The Orthodox, in the latter 3rd century, was not in schism and the whole Eastern Church was one with the Church of the West, the Latin/Roman Rite, and thus there was only one church who could canonize scipture. What I don't know is, did they send delegates to the various synods them to determine the canon?

Perhaps someone else knows...

Anyway, enjoy your company...

God bless,


PAX

Bill+†+


Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
(Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate)

 

[DHK]

Canon is the Greek word signifying a “straight rod, or rule.” When used figuratively it means “that by which anything is tested as a rule”—such as a test or rule of logic. It is used in Gsl.6:16, Phil.3:16, as a “rule of life,” and in 2Cor.10:13,16 as a measure of excellence.” It was first applied to the Scriptures in the 4th century A.D. From the time of Origen it has been applied to the books of the Bible which are regarded as having authority. We speak, therefore, of “The Canon of Scripture.” Uncanonical books are those that are not in the Canon. The books of the Apocrypha belong to this class because all the evidence points to the fact that they were not inspired, do not have divine authority, and are not a part of the Scriptures as a “rule of faith.” In matters of religion and ethics the Bible is the standard, the rule or canon by which these are judged.

The Old Testament Canon
In regard to the Jewish Canon, by the order of Moses the “book of the law” was placed in the ark (Deu.31:26). Following that period, the Book of Joshua, and other records were added. Daniel (9:10,11) refers to “the law” and “the prophets.” Isaiah (34:16) speaks of the “book of the Lord.”
After the captivity, the Law was given its final form, probably, by Ezra and the “Great Synagogue.” Nehemiah founded a library in which were gathered together, for the Second Temple, “the acts of the kings, and the prophets, and those of David.” In the prologue of the Greek translation of Ecclesiasticus (131 B.C.) we have the first notice of the Old Testament as a distinct compilation. Philo-Judaeus (20 B.C.-40A.D.) speaks of the constant use of “the laws and oracles, produced by the prophets, and hymns and other [Scriptures].”

Josephus (ca. 37-100 A.D.), the Jewish historian, gives additional factual information on this subject. He specifically states that the books having divine authority were the five books of Moses, 13 books of Prophets, and “four hymns and directions of life.” With the exception of Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon he describes all the books of the Old Testament as “divine.” He does not allude to the four just mentioned because they did not furnish any materials for his work. Josephus declares that, since the death of Artaxerxes (424 B.C.), “no one had dared, up to this day, to add anything to them, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them.” This clearly indicates that the Jewish Canon assumed a settled form in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. It is identical with the Old Testament as we now have it, our 39 books being classified so as to accord with the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The 12 Minor Prophets were counted as one book, Ruth was coupled with Judges, Ezra with Nehemiah, Lamentations with Jeremiah, and the two books of Samuel, of Kings, and of Chronicles, were each reckoned as one. Jerome gives the contents of Law, Prophets, and Hagiographa in exact accordance with those of the Hebrew authorities. The Talmud also agrees with the same and gives the writers of each.

Later, these books of the Jewish Canon were regarded by Christians as having divine authority and, as such, were quoted extensively by writers. It is an important fact that between 200 A.D. and 400A.D. ten catalogues of canonical books were published. Six of these agree with our present Canon, and three omit only Revelation.
By “Genuineness and Authenticity of the Scriptures” is meant that the books included the actual writings that have come down to us, and that those writings have been unaltered.
We have laid emphasis upon the canonical Old Testament Scriptures, proving that they consist of those books of the Jewish Canon and no others. The books of the Apocrypha are not in that Canon and are to be rejected as a part of the inspired Bible. From time to time they were added to the Greek Septuagint and thus found their way into the Bible. By uncritical processes they came to be accepted by Alexandrian Jews. The best of the early Fathers rejected these 14 books and maintained that the only books of the Old Testament having divine authority and constituting the Canon were those of the Jewish collection. External and internal evidence alike are against the inspiration of the books comprising the Apocrypha. They are, therefore, no part of the rule of faith, no part of the Word of God. (John A. Dixon)

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by WPutnam:
Read carefully, Matthew 16:19....

"Whatsoever you bind on earth, is bound in heaven; whatsoever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven." (parapharased)

Now, I certainly do not see a specific claim here that the Catholic Church is given authority to "change the bible," but authority I do see.

So then, sir, how do you reconsile the fact that the Church, in the 3rd century, not only "wrote" the New Testament (her "Charter clergy" in the apostles) but determined the New Testament? Who gave her the authority to exclude, for example, the following "competing" books that were contenpory in those early apostolic times:

1. I believe that you assume too much. The Catholic Church had nothing to do with the writing of the New Testament (or any other part of the Bible). The Old Testament were written by prophets, and the New Testament was written by the Apostles (not Catholics).

2Pet.3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

Jude 17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

The authority given to Peter in Mat.16:19 is given to all the Apostles in Mat.18:18, and that is in the context of church discipline. The keys refer to the keys of knowledge, or the knowledge of the gospel. Compare Scripture with Scripture.

(Luke 11:52 KJV) Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Here is what the Pharisees and lawyers had done. They had taken away that knowledge that was necessary for salvation from the people. Jesus refers to that knowledge as the "Key of knowledge." This is the same key that Jesus was referring to in Matthew when He was speaking to Peter and the apostles. If they accepted the gospel message their sins were forgiven; if they rejected the gospel message their sins were not forgiven.

There is no apostolic succession. There was no universal "church." In the third century there were many Bible believing churches that had the Scriptures to guide them. They didn't need a pope. The church at Rome was small compared to the church at Antioch. Except for Peter's death, no proof can be offered that Peter was even in Rome.

Now, take a look at your New Testament and notice the absence of these books! So, my question to you is, if you accept the way your New Testament is, as canonized by the very church you are so suspicious of, then notice the thin ice you stand on when you consider your Bible to be the sole source for your faith, doctrines and moral authority.

Your assumption is that the Catholic Church canonized the Scriptures. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Apostles wrote the Scripture, identified the Scripture, passed on to the early believers the knowledge of which Scripture was inspired and which was not. Look again:

2Pet.3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Peter acknowledges Paul's epistles as inspired Scripture. Not only that he seems to know which of his epistles are inspired and which are not. He also refers to "other Scriptures," speaking of other New Testament Scriptures. The Apostles knew which books were inspired and which were not. As a book was written, it may have been accepted by the apostolic community shortly after it was written as inspired or canonical. This was definitely true concerning Paul's epistles. Peter acknowledges them as such. By the end of the first century the canon was completed, not by the Catholic Church, but by the early believers that sat under the teaching of the apostles. This can be verified in other early translations of the New Testament. For the Catholic Church to take credit for canonization of the Scripture is just wishful thinking. Do you take credit for Origen's Arianism, and Augustine's hyper-calvinism as well?

Christ, while he was with the apostles in the flesh, did not command the apostles to write a thing!

I beg to differ with you.
John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.
--Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth. I believe this has to do with the writing of the Scriptures.

What Christ did was establish a church from which a platform was established therefore the apostles could "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit" per Matthew 28:19.

What Christ commanded was to go into all the world, preach the gospel, baptize believers, teach them again. Paul was an example of this, and on three missionary journeys he did not establish a church but over one hundred churches.

No, it was not Peter, but it was on Peter the church was established!

"Garbage," you say? If that is the way you feel about it, then perhaps yoou should cut-out from your bible, Matthew 16:18-19?

Peter was but a stone; Christ is the rock that is spoken of here. All throughout Scripture "The Lord is our rock and salvation." He is the chief cornerstone." "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." Christ is always the ROCK, never Peter.

Boy, what thin ice you stand on, wanting to pick and choose from scripture what you accept and what you do not accept!

My hope is built on nothing less,
Than Jesus blood and righteousness.
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly trust in Jesus name.
On Christ the solid Rock I stand;
All other ground is sinking sand!
All other ground is sinking sand!
DHK

 

[3AngelsMom]

DHK,

Excellent post.