Whose Bible Is It, Anyway?

Catholic Educators Network ^ | Karl Keating

[NYer]

The most overlooked part of the Bible, apologetically speaking, is the table of contents.

It does more than just tell us the pages on which the constituent books begin. It tells us that the Bible is a collection of books, and that implies a collector. The identity of the collector is what chiefly distinguishes the Protestant from the Catholic.

Douglas Wilson knows this. Writing in Credenda Agenda, a periodical espousing the Reformed faith, he notes that “the problem with contemporary Protestants is that they have no doctrine of the table of contents. With the approach that is popular in conservative Evangelical circles, one simply comes to the Bible by means of an epistemological lurch. The Bible ‘just is,’ and any questions about how it got here are dismissed as a nuisance. But time passes, the questions remain unanswered, the silence becomes awkward, and conversions of thoughtful Evangelicals to Rome proceed apace.”

Most Protestants are at a loss when asked how they know that the 66 books in their Bibles belong in it. (They are at an even greater loss to explain why the seven additional books appearing in Catholic Bibles are missing from theirs.) For them the Bible “just is.” They take it as a given. It never occurs to most of them that they ought to justify its existence. All Christians agree that the books that make up the Bible are inspired, meaning that God somehow guided the sacred authors to write all of, and only, what he wished. They wrote, most of them, without any awareness that they were being moved by God. As they wrote, God used their natural talents and their existing ways of speech. Each book of the Bible is an image not only of the divine Inspirer but of the all-too-human author. So how do we know whether Book A is inspired while Book B is not? A few unsophisticated Protestants are satisfied with pointing to the table of contents, as though that modern addition somehow validates the inspiration of the 66 books, but many Protestants simply shrug and admit that they don’t know why they know the Bible consists of inspired books and only inspired books. Some Protestants claim that they do have a way of knowing, a kind of internal affirmation that is obtained as they read the text.

Wilson cites the Westminster Confession — the 1647 Calvinist statement of faith — which says that the Holy Spirit provides “full persuasion and assurance” regarding Scripture to those who are converted. The converted,” says Wilson, “are in turn enabled to see the other abundant evidences, which include the testimony of the Church.” But the “testimony of the Church” cannot be definitive or binding since the Church may err, according to Protestant lights. (Protestants do not believe the Church is infallible when it teaches.) What really counts is the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. Without it, the Protestant is at a loss — but, even with it, he is at a loss. When young Mormon missionaries come to your door, they ask you to accept a copy of the Book of Mormon. You hesitate, but they say that all they want is for you to read the text and ask God to give you a sign that the text is inspired. They call this sign the “burning in the bosom.” If you feel uplifted, moved, prodded toward the good or true — if you feel “inspired,” in the colloquial rather than theological sense of that word — as you read the Book of Mormon, then that is supposed to be proof that Joseph Smith’s text is from God.

A moment’s thought will show that the “burning in the bosom” proves too much. It proves not only that the Book of Mormon is inspired but that your favorite secular poetry is inspired. You can get a similar feeling anytime you read an especially good novel (or, for some people, even a potboiler) or a thrilling history or an intriguing biography. Are all these books inspired? Of course not, and that shows that the “burning in the bosom” may be a good propaganda device but is a poor indicator of divine authorship.

Back to the Protestant. The “full persuasion and assurance” of the Westminster Confession is not readily distinguishable from Mormonism’s “burning in the bosom.” You read a book of the Bible and are “inspired” by it — and that proves its inspiration. The sequence is easy enough to experience in reading the Gospels, but I suspect no one ever has felt the same thing when reading the two books of Chronicles. They read like dry military statistics because that is what they largely are.

Neither the simplistic table-of-contents approach nor the more sophisticated Westminster Confession approach will do. The Christian needs more than either if he is to know for certain that the books of the Bible come ultimately from God. 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.

[Kolokotronis]

You know, S, I've believed and believe what my ancestors have believed for about 1700+ years and worship in the same manner as they did. I am marginally familiar with both the OT and the NT and what the Fathers and councils of The Church have to say about the Faith...but you've completely lost me. A bit earlier gbcdoj commented that you were declaring Pelagianism in your posts. About a year ago I commented here on FR that I didn't know much of anything about Pelagianism since it was never an issue in the Eastern Church. If in fact you are a Pelagian, then I must say that a) I know and understand even less about it than I thought and b) I can see why it was condemned as a heresy.

HD, gbcdoj, am I missing something here in my simple Balkan peasant Orthodox ways?

[spunkets]

"About a year ago I commented here on FR that I didn't know much of anything about Pelagianism"

I don't know much about it either. It was brought up once when I denied original sin here once before. From the little I have seen, their appears to be a misunderstanding regarding what grace is. I have already said, that grace is the presentation of the Holy Spirit. It is not some mysterious force from God that alters the nature of man.

The foundation for what I believe is the words of God Himself given in the 4 Gospels and the sign of Jonah. From there I can understand everything else w/o mystery, or contradiction. If I start from another reference nothing is logical.

[gbcdoj]

Pelagians hold that God's grace is just his law and teaching which helps men to make themselves righteous. For the Pelagian, there is no need of grace to heal man's sinful state, making him upright and equipping him for good works. That is why I say that spunkets is a Pelagian. For instance, in his latest post, he remarks: "grace is the presentation of the Holy Spirit. It is not some mysterious force from God that alters the nature of man." So for spunkets, grace is just the Holy Spirit telling men what they should do:

"God's intent, from the beginning is that the gift of life should be eternal and with Him. God came to teach, to enable us to do so. ... That draw is the recognition of the Holy Spirit. The presentaiton of the Holy Spirit is grace. Man judges the Holy Spirit according to what they value. The draw is realizaiton and judgement [that] what the Spirit holds and teaches is good."

Augustine's description of Pelagius' idea of grace corresponds precisely with spunkets' definition:

For that grace and help of God, by which we are assisted in avoiding sin, [Pelagius] places either in nature and free will, or else in the gift of the law and teaching; the result of which of course is this, that whenever God helps a man, He must be supposed to help him to turn away from evil and do good, by revealing to him and teaching him what he ought to do, but not with the additional assistance of His co-operation and inspiration of love, that he may accomplish that which he had discovered it to be his duty to do. (On the Grace of Christ, 3)

[gbcdoj]

Forgot to ping you to the above mentioning you, sorry.

[Kolokotronis]

Thanks. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised everytime I run across old heresies coming to life, but I still am. Your further explanation of Pelagianism makes it even more clear to me why The Church anathemized it. It absolutely guts any of The Church's teachings about the Incarnation and virtually everything which follows from that (which, of course, is pretty much everything we profess as Christians).

[TradicalRC]

Even Lutherans do not claim infallibility for Martin Luther. He got a lot of things right, but he did make mistakes. This is not a big deal to non-Roman Christians.

I suppose there is that long running debate about where he was right and where he made mistakes. But that is another topic altogether.

My main topic is the canon of Scripture. Since I notice so many "Christian" churches embracing homosexuality, just as many embraced abortion and artificial contraception regardless of nineteen and a half centuries of Christianity, I know that the Scripture is up for grabs sometime soon. It has been attacked in terms of its historicity and now translations are made, not with the standard of fidelity, but with the standard of "relevance". I believe that the next round of attacks will be on the canon itself;i.e. whichbooks constitute Scripture. This is already a "wedge issue" amongst Christians:Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons come to mind as having different canons. The Roman Catholic position is that the Church had the authority to decide on the canon as it is guided by the Holy Spirit. Since Luther no longer recognized it as authoritive in this matter, he abridged the canon to suit his theology, thereby introducing a novelty into the decision of canon. Protestant culture places a lot of emphasis on individual conscience so why can't some Christian in good conscience decide that Scripture should also include some gnostic texts or the book of Mormon or Essene texts or the writings of Mary Baker Eddy.

I think it is a good question and Ought to be a big deal to Christians of all denoms. If it is not now, I predict it will be soon.

[HarleyD]

I post 1 Tim 2:14 which clearly state Adam was not deceived and yet you state that he was. I guess you must know more than Paul.

I'd have to concur with gbcdoj that you do sound very Pelagian who felt that man could work his way to heaven. While I believe Pelagian root error was man's free will, it cascaded into greater and greater heresy.

[jo kus]

I've found quite a diverse interpretation of doctrine when addressing Greek Orthodox, Anglican and Roman Catholics. Have they recently united in their beliefs?

No. Nor have I claimed that the Greek Orthodox Church or the Anglican community were "Catholic" and united with Rome, catholic meaning "the totality of the faith". Much of the disagreement between the East and West are allowable diversity in the faith - our faith is a mystery, not a rationalized set of doctrines that have no room for interpretation or re-defining to take into account the Holy Spirit's continuing guidance.

Regards

[spunkets]

"I post 1 Tim 2:14 which clearly state Adam was not deceived and yet you state that he was. I guess you must know more than Paul. "

All right, it says the woman was deceived, not Adam. Both however knowingly tried to become like God by taking and eating the fruit. That after both had heard the serpent speak. Paul's word's diminished that fact in order to promote the supremacy of gender over the other as if they were not both men.

I can't say much about Pelagius. What he said was similar, but I don't quite agree with all of what I have seen.

[spunkets]

"Your further explanation of Pelagianism makes it even more clear to me why The Church anathemized it. It absolutely guts any of The Church's teachings about the Incarnation and virtually everything which follows from that (which, of course, is pretty much everything we profess as Christians)."

Obviously denying original sin is against church doctrine. Anyhting that follows from a foundation of original sin is of course, built on that original error. Your conclusion gives nothing specific. BTW, I didn't explain Pelagianism, because I don't really know what it is.

[HarleyD]

"All right, it says the woman was deceived, not Adam. Both however knowingly tried to become like God by taking and eating the fruit."

No. If the woman was "deceived" it would mean she did not fully understand what she was doing or of her consequences. Her response to the serpent is an indication of her confusion.

"Paul's word's diminished that fact in order to promote the supremacy of gender over the other as if they were not both men."

Paul's words were inspired by the Holy Spirit. I doubt very much God's Spirit diminished anything. God has always had a particular order both in the church and in the family, much to the consternation of many today.

[Kolokotronis]

"Obviously denying original sin is against church doctrine. Anyhting that follows from a foundation of original sin is of course, built on that original error. Your conclusion gives nothing specific."

Read my tagline and look at this:

Here is what your theory would do away with:

"Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again;
for forgiveness has risen from the grave.
Let no one fear death, for the Death of our Savior has set us free.

He has destroyed it by enduring it.
He destroyed Hades when He descended into it.
He put it into an uproar even as it tasted of His flesh.
Isaiah foretold this when he said,
"You, O Hell, have been troubled by encountering Him below."

Hell was in an uproar because it was done away with.
It was in an uproar because it is mocked.
It was in an uproar, for it is destroyed.
It is in an uproar, for it is annihilated.
It is in an uproar, for it is now made captive.
Hell took a body, and discovered God.
It took earth, and encountered Heaven.
It took what it saw, and was overcome by what it did not
see.
O death, where is thy sting?
O Hades, where is thy victory?

Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!
Christ is Risen, and the evil ones are cast down!
Christ is Risen, and the angels rejoice!
Christ is Risen, and life is liberated!
Christ is Risen, and the tomb is emptied of its dead;
for Christ having risen from the dead,
is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

To Him be Glory and Power forever and ever. Amen!
(Excerpt from the Paschal Sermon of +John Chrysostomos.

Specific enough for you?

[spunkets]

What I said does away with none of what you posted.

[Cvengr]

Thank you very much. well informed and structured response that helped me follow my fellow brothers in Christ.

[spunkets]

"If the woman was "deceived" it would mean she did not fully understand what she was doing or of her consequences."

Failure to know and understand is an integral part of deception. She was motivated by the same motivation that Adam was. They believed the serpent and wanted the knowledge and wisdom that would allow them to be like God. They both ignored what God said regarding death. It was an exercise in free will.

" Paul's words were inspired by the Holy Spirit. God has always had a particular order both in the church and in the family, much to the consternation of many today."

Those word's of Paul's were inspired by the hardness of his audiences' heart and his own opinion, just as the word's of Moses regarding divorce was. It says women are not to think and teach, just obey and have babies. It implies the fall was Eve's fault. Notice it says Adam was not deceived, it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. I posted from Genesis 3, the man was right there and heard the serpents every word!

[Kolokotronis]

You are very welcome. One of the advantages of a site like this is that usually the threads ultimately lead to greater mutual understanding ,if not acceptance, of each others' views. The level of misunderstanding astonishes me, though I confess before I engaged in discussions here, I never really paid much attention to what Latins and Protestants were doing, let alone saying or teaching. It is an ongoing and valuable experience.

[spunkets]

"Pelagians hold that God's grace is just his law and teaching which helps men to make themselves righteous."

That is obviouly not the Holy Spirit. This statement of yours is similar to the notion of what I have gathered sofar in reading about what the monk held. I don't know exactly what he did hold though.

I said that grace was the presentation of the Holy Spirit. That's, because the Holy Spirit is a person and it's the person presenting Himself. God is not law and teachings. Not all accept the Holy Spirit and in fact some reject Him. The rejection is based on what He holds. If one accepts the Holy Spirit, they accept what He holds and the comfort and joy He brings. For some, that's all they know about Him and that's all that matters. They are like children and know no more. John 14:1 "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.

The phrases, "filled with Holy Spirit" and "filled will grace" are used interchangably in the New Testament.

Luke 1:15
for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth.

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Here grace and the Holy Spirit and one in the same. The Holy Spirit is God and grace is all those things that make up the Person od God.

John 1:16
From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another.

John 1:17
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

John 14:16
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— John 14:26
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. John 15:26
"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.

John 16:7
But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

Matthew 12:39
He answered, ""A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah."

All the above verses refer to the Holy Spirit. God Himself never menitons the word grace, only the words counselor, bread of life, and the Holy Spirit. They are all one in the same.

"Augustine's description of Pelagius' idea of grace corresponds precisely with spunkets' definition:

Well let's see.

Your cut from Augustine.

"For that grace and help of God, by which we are assisted in avoiding sin, [Pelagius] places either in nature and free will, or else in the gift of the law and teaching;"

The Holy Spirit is the person of God, not law and teaching. Augustine then states his conclusion.

"that whenever God helps a man, He must be supposed to help him to turn away from evil and do good, by revealing to him and teaching him what he ought to do, but not with the additional assistance of His co-operation and inspiration of love, that he may accomplish that which he had discovered it to be his duty to do.

One who is guided by the Holy Spirit, the person of God, co-operates absolutely. The inspiration of Love is w/o a doubt recognized. I concluded that I don't believe Pelagius and agree with Augustine here. That means what I hold is not Pelagianism.

[Kolokotronis]

OK, I'll bite. Why then was it necessary for Christ to be born in time of a virgin, suffer, die, descend to hell, break down the gates of hell, preach life to those in the tomb and rise on the Third Day if, by the effects of the Sin of Adam, mankind had not cut itself off from theosis?

[HarleyD]

Failure to know and understand is an integral part of deception. She was motivated by the same motivation that Adam was.

Not at all. Eve was mislead. Adam willfully took of the fruit. This is an important difference and why Adam condemned the race. You are reading into this what isn't there.

Those word's of Paul's were inspired by the hardness of his audiences' heart and his own opinion, just as the word's of Moses regarding divorce was.

Whoa!!! What a statement.

[spunkets]

"According to your 61, Jesus came just to teach man so that he might more easily follow the commandments (which he already has the "capacity" to do). All Christ did was make salvation easier.

I said He came to teach who He is. Is God a short list of commandments?

Matthew 11:27
"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

God chose to reveal these things to the world. John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." It is the Holy Spirit that is to be beleived. That is the person of God.

"All Christ did was make salvation easier."

Matt 12:32
Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

"Ezechiel is not talking about Adam's sin, but about the sins of Israelites in his own time. The prophet was well aware of the need for the grace of Christ for the salvation of men, as he says elsewhere: "I will give them one heart, and will put a new spirit in their bowels: and I will take away the stony heart out of their flesh,"

Ezechiel is not talking about Adam's sin, but about the sins of Israelites in his own time. The prophet was well aware of the need for the grace of Christ for the salvation of men, as he says elsewhere: "I will give them one heart, and will put a new spirit in their bowels: and I will take away the stony heart out of their flesh,

Ezekiel 18 is timeless and global in scope. It refers to Adam's sin. It is a statement of God's holding, regarding Justice. The concept of salvaiton is irrelevant here. Salvation is a result of God's love, not His justice.

"Why, then, does our Lord say clearly: "Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Matt 12:32, given above. To be born again means to accept the Holy Spirit and make Him a part of your person. I'm reminded of, "you are what you eat."

" According to you, no rebirth through baptism is necessary for salvation, since we all start out as righteous anyway!"

See Matt 12:32 again and Matthew 3:11,
"I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

We do not start out righteous. We start out an empty slate, innocent of all and deserving of the love of those who brought us forth. Matthew 18:3,
And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Re:According to Augustine, children are unclean, conceived in iniquity and nourished in their mother's sin. "And where could he have gotten this silly idea? "For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me." (Ps. 50:7)"

You mean the one written when the prophet Nathan came to him, after David had committed adultery with Bathsheba. I hardly think the man's opinion of himself at this point is global in scope. Also, the Hebrew has sin singular.

"The idea that Augustine was the founder of Calvinism is ridiculous."

I said, Augustine's writings are the foundation of Calvinism, not that he was the founder. Of course they claim Biblical sources as their foundation. His ideas are what make up the bulk of the "totally degenerate man."

"since they do naturally whatever things belong to the law, having the work of the law written on the hearts thus far"

Thanks for the cut from against Julian. This is a contradictory doctrine. It says the law is written on their hearts, but their nature is flawed. I don't believe God did this. It makes no sense, other than to provide pliable building material.