Whose Bible Is It, Anyway?

Catholic Educators Network ^ | Karl Keating

[Conservative til I die]

What beautiful logic! Here is the summary: Douglas Wilson-bad, all protestants-stupid, Mormonism-burning bosom. Based on this, it can categorically be said that the Catholic Bible is correct because the Church is infallible. I totally get it now.

As opposed to the Protestant circular argument of "We know the Scriptures are the real Scriptures because they're the Scriptures because it says it's the Scriptures on the cover"?

[Conservative til I die]

"He needs an authoritative collector to affirm their inspiration. That collector must be something other than an internal feeling. It must be an authoritative — and, yes, infallible Church."

Subjectively, Jesus said...

"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." - John 8

and even more strikingly in John 7...

"So Jesus answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority."

So you see, it is possible that one can have an authentic inner assurance of the words of Christ. This is something that is deeper that mere mental ascent - it is an inner moral conviction that what Christ says is true - but it only comes to those who are willing to obey what they read.

Now objectively, how did the early Church (pre canon) arrive at the inspiration and canonisity of an early work? Did THEY rely on an "authoritative infallible Church" - of course not. They arrived at it based on the spiritual nature of it's content, it's proximity to an Apostolic figure, and it's universal acceptance.

Why can not the same criterion hold true for believers today as it did for those of the 1st, 2nd & 3rd centuries?

It's not as if the Canon was magically and uniformly implanted into the minds of each and every believer, from Peter to the peasant woman on the street in Judea. History shows many books were in use in early centuries. Even if there was a general idea of what books might be considered Canonical, there had to be a moment where the Canon was "officially" defined.

Face it, today's Protestants as well as Catholics and the Orthodox accept at least 66 books of the Bible as canon because of decisions made in the distant past. It's not as if the 2 billion of us each made an individual analysis of every verse and chapter to come to a conscious decision on what is Canon. We pretty much take the Canon for granted.

[NYer]

Here we go again more "Born Again" bashing.

Where is there any bashing? This article simply points to the source of the Bible ... period. It is a statement of fact. Who gave us the Bible? How is that bashing anyone? Please excuse the ignorance.

[NYer]

If you'd like to discuss this by private post, please advise.

Why private post? Is there something you do not wish to share with others in the forum?

[Sloth]

Absurd. Aside from a "burning in the heart" or other such irrational reason, why would one accept the alleged "authority" of any church?

The Scriptures can be analyzed rationally and logically.

[kjvail]

The most damning argument against the Holy Spirit "assuring" each individual reader of the scriptures is the fact that it it were true, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, Spirit of Truth seems to be playing head games with people. .

You get 10 protestants from 10 different denomiations together and ask them to interpret 1 passage from scripture for you and you are likely to get 10 different answers. Hence we get a new denomination every 2 days in the US on average.

Ya, someone is "assuring" these people of their interpretation, but it ain't the Holy Spirit, who is God and neither wishes to deceive nor can He be deceived.

The fact is, human beings cannot stand authority - we rebel against it constantly. We just can't stop believing the first lie of the serpent - God is a tyrant whose rules are preventing us from attaining true happiness. This is the lie that keeps on giving

[Kolokotronis]

Oh, Padre, you can do so much better than that! :( Po, Po, PO,(shaking his old gray head)!

[NYer]

We just can't stop believing the first lie of the serpent - God is a tyrant whose rules are preventing us from attaining true happiness. This is the lie that keeps on giving.

Bless you! You have earned an A+ on your report.

[Kolokotronis]

"They arrived at it based on the spiritual nature of it's content, it's proximity to an Apostolic figure, and it's universal acceptance."

Very good, PM. Now, who were "they"? :)

[NYer]

Absurd. Aside from a "burning in the heart" or other such irrational reason, why would one accept the alleged "authority" of any church? The Scriptures can be analyzed rationally and logically.

Can anyone honestly say that they came to faith in a complete vacuum with only a Bible in their hands? Didn’t you learn the faith from your parents, teachers, pastors, other Christians, etc. first, and only later read the Bible under the "patronage," so to speak, of those people? And, once again, if I am a Calvinist, will I not form my beliefs around the tenets of Calvinism, making John Calvin my magisterium? If you are now patting yourself on the back for avoiding "institutional Christianity" and going with the "pure wheat" of scripture, then you prove your likeness to Calvin, Luther, Zwingly, etc., all the more. Like them, you are setting off to be your own pope, building your own one-man "Christian institution."

Someone somewhere has to make decisions about public revelation that are definitive. Otherwise, we can never claim to know anything. We call those decisions infallible. We can use another word - certainty, assurance - but a rose by any other name smells the same. Protestants have this as well: Calvinists interpret Romans 9 to teach strict Calvinism. If I question that it does, I will be met with correction. If that isn’t an authoritative magisterium, what is it?

[Logophile]

I really do not wish to get caught up in another Protestant vs. Catholic brawl. However, since the author mentioned "Mormons," I must correct an error.

The Book of Mormon says nothing about a "burning in the bosom." That idea is found in the Bible (Luke 24:32) and in the Doctrine and Covenants (9:8).

The Book of Mormon does promise that God will answer a sincere, faithful prayer:

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost. (Moroni 10:4)

This verse says that God will manifest the truth by the power of the Holy Ghost; but it does not say in what form that manifestation will come. The "burning" that some speak of is not experienced by all. God may reveal truth in other ways.

[Forest Keeper]

As opposed to the Protestant circular argument of "We know the Scriptures are the real Scriptures because they're the Scriptures because it says it's the Scriptures on the cover"?

I certainly don't argue that and I admit that I don't even know what the "official" Protestant position is on this. My argument would be that if we can all agree that the Bible is a gift from God to us for our benefit in knowing Him, and if we agree that the Word is divinely inspired, then why is it such a stretch that God also had a direct hand in the organization of the final text? Why would God go to all that trouble just to have us meditate on error?

[jo kus]

The Apostle Paul who's living, breathing, and talking to you, OR do you ignore Paul and his words and say, "Alright everyone, that church over there...they're the ones who found him, so listen to them. They're the final authority....not Paul

What makes you think they'd disagree?

Regards

[jo kus]

Now objectively, how did the early Church (pre canon) arrive at the inspiration and canonisity of an early work? Did THEY rely on an "authoritative infallible Church" - of course not. They arrived at it based on the spiritual nature of it's content, it's proximity to an Apostolic figure, and it's universal acceptance.

Certainly.

Why can not the same criterion hold true for believers today as it did for those of the 1st, 2nd & 3rd centuries?

In practice, it doesn't work. Look in the phone book under "Christian churches". Each and every one of them claim the guidance of the Spirit, don't they? Yet, the Spirit is NOT a spirit of disunity. Thus, we can only conclude that these groups are just WRONG! They are NOT hearing the Spirit, nor are they guided by Him, at least in all areas of belief. Fortunately, the Church has been given a means to determine what the Spirit is saying - the Magesterium of the Church - the authoritative teachers who define what the Church already believes in their liturgy, prayer, and practice.

The Spirit comes to us as the "sense of the faithful". But as individuals, we do not "bind and loosen". The Spirit has been given to the entire Church, not just to individuals who come to the exact same conclusion on all beliefs independently of each other. Experience proves this is not the case.

Regards

[jo kus]

I consider it the word of the Apostles.

How do you KNOW? Paul himself warns his congregations at several different times to beware of false writings attributed to him. How do you know that what we have is Paul's writings?

The reason, of course, is that we trust the Church who has handed it down to us. Otherwise, how do you go about disproving such nutty claims that the Da Vinci Code is more correct? In the end, we call the Scriptures the Word of God because we believe that the Church has preserved just that - God's Word.

Regards

[jo kus]

P.S. Bible comes from the Greek "biblios" (forgive the perhaps sloppy transliteration) meaning "book".

bookS plural.

Regards

[PetroniusMaximus]

"In practice, it doesn't work. Look in the phone book under "Christian churches". Each and every one of them claim the guidance of the Spirit, don't they?"

That doesn't evidence the lack of the Spirit guidance but the persistent sinfulness in the heart of man. You have just as much diversity of opinion in the RCC! Where we differ is in the area of centralized versus decentralized leadership.



"Yet, the Spirit is NOT a spirit of disunity."

Then how can you claim that the Spirit lead your church to unilaterally slice of roughly half the body of Christ in the great schism????




"Thus, we can only conclude that these groups are just WRONG! They are NOT hearing the Spirit, nor are they guided by Him,"

Similarly one might say that unless YOU are sinless and perfectly obedient to the Spirit then you are not are not guided by Him and you are not a Christian.
There are roughly 100,000,000 Christians in China today because of the work of one Christian man - Hudson Taylor. I find it hard to believe, based on the fruit he bore, that he was not being led by the Spirit.

[PetroniusMaximus]

"Very good, PM. Now, who were "they"? :)"

The early Church?


(waiting for the zinger...)

[PetroniusMaximus]

"PS: What else is "universal acceptance" but an appeal to the authority of the Church? I'm surprised you don't see this"

... but not an appeal to the heirarchy - i.e. the "authoritative, infallable Church". Rather an appeal to universal acceptance among all Christians.

[Salvation]

Which came first? The Church or the Bible?

Answer: the Church