Whose Bible Is It, Anyway?

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.

You say that your theories do not obviate the necessity of the events +John Chrysostomos gave his Paschal Homily on. Yet the very purpose of the Incarnation was to save mankind from a bondage which by its own efforts and power it was unable to do. +Leo the Great wrote on this very subject in Sermon XXIV On the Feast of the Nativity, IV, 2:

"Let the righteous then rejoice in the Lord, and let the hearts of believers turn to God’s praise, and the sons of men confess His wondrous acts; since in this work of God especially our humble estate realizes how highly its Maker values it: in that, after His great gift to mankind in making us after His image, He contributed far more largely to our restoration when the Lord Himself took on Him “the form of a slave.” For though all that the Creator expends upon His creature is part of one and the same Fatherly love, yet it is less wonderful than man should advance to divine things than that God should descend to humanity. But unless the Almighty God did deign to do this, no kind of righteousness, no form of wisdom could rescue any one from the devil’s bondage and from the depths of eternal death. For the condemnation that passes with sin from one upon all would remain, and our nature, corroded by its deadly wound, would discover no remedy, because it could not alter its state in its own strength. For the first man received the substance of flesh from the earth, and was quickened with a rational spirit by the in-breathing of his Creator , so that living after the image and likeness of his Maker, he might preserve the form of God’s goodness and righteousness as in a bright mirror. And, if he had perseveringly maintained this high dignity of his nature by observing the Law that was given him, his uncorrupt mind would have raised the character even Of his earthly body to heavenly glory. But because in unhappy rashness he trusted the envious deceiver, and agreeing to his presumptuous counsels, preferred to forestall rather than to win the increase of honour that was in storefor him, not only did that one man, but in him all that came after him also hear the verdict: “earth thou art, and unto earth shalt thou go ;” “as in the earthy,” therefore, “such are they also that are earthy ,” and no one is immortal, because no one is heavenly."

Was this Holy and early Father wrong, S?

I think it is a good question and Ought to be a big deal to Christians of all denoms.

When I wrote "no big deal," I was referring to Martin Luthor's opinion of his own authority to define canon. The question of what is and what is not Scripture is, of course, "a big deal."

If it is not now, I predict it will be soon.

According to Religious Tolerance, "Some liberal theologians have recommended that the canon be opened for additional writings." But this in itself is not a big deal. Being described as "liberal theologians", they are already in the category of actually not accepting anything as inspired Scripture. Their opinion is irrelevant, except as further evidence of modern apostasy.

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.

??? For the simple reason that, while some latitude (but not complete latitude) is given in the interpretation of Scripture, no latitude is given in the determination of what is Scripture. I am referring to those Protestant churches which still stand on the Bible, not the liberal branches which have already effectively abandoned the Bible, or to cults (not in the Protestant category, anyway) which have added to it.

From a fundamentalist, as opposed to protestant, point of view, the Scriptures were well identified by the church long before the beginning of the Established church in thr fourth century. There is no reliance on Ecumenical Councils, and the Council of Trent (which was not ecumenical) is an irrelevancy.

"Catholicism teaches one doctrine on any given topic. This doctrine is considered to be true, now and forever."

Same is true for Prots. You touch salvation by grace, the Trinity, the Deity of Jesus Christ and your out the door and ranked with the cults.

"In Protestantism, you're starting from a position of relativism. Teachings are flexible because every Christian is given the insipration of the Holy Spirit on a seemingly co-equal basis."

That's not true. Historic Protestantism/Evangelicalism is anything but relativistic. We are built upon the rock of Christ's words. And if any big name teacher get out of line - out of the parameters of historic Christianity - he will be publicly spoken against by other leaders - aka Benny Hinn.

"ABout the only thing most Protestants agree on is there's a Trinity. And even a few don't believe that! There are differences of opinion on all kinds of non-trivial things: Ordination of women and gays."

Modernism is a scourge we BOTH suffer from, my friend. There are many modernists comfortably situated in your church.

"Who goes to Heaven and Hell?"

Hey, that one is easy!

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." - John 3:16

Of course He. is. But, I think we could actually reach a consensus that He doesn't generally come town to earth in that living and breathing form to straighten out our messes lately. He has too much respect for our free will than to do that, for, clearly, if Jesus did such a thing, the whole world would be compelled to obedience by irrefutable evidence of His existence, and faith wouldn't have any bearing on the equation anymore.

That's not His way. He prefers that we "contend for the faith" (Jude 1:3) *as* a faith, not as an elegantly laid-out proof as in a geometry class. He set in place Peter as His vicar, to rule the Church in His stead. Peter was not God, neither were any of his successors. Yet he and they were empowered by Jesus to act with His full authority (Matt. 16:18-19; Luke 22:32; John 21:15-17). To a lesser extent, the rest of the apostles shared that authority (Matthew 28:20; John 20:21-23). Certainly, our very discussion proves that it is within the realm of possibility for differing factions to "contend" over the authority of mere men, even if one side thinks there's clear evidence of their status as having been deputized by God Himself!

Jesus is alive and breathing; amazingly, we both agree on that. ;-) But He reigns in heaven in glory, and will not come for His own in "alive and breathing" form until the end of the age. He left us His physical presence via the Eucharist in the mean time, and left the running of His alive and breathing Church to His alive and breathing representatives: the popes and bishops, successors of Peter and the rest of the apostles, who are aided in their decisions by the Holy Spirit. Your argument is basically a straw man, if you claim we assign too much authority to mere men. No one claims they are God. They merely act in His stead, as per His design. If you have issues with that, you need to take them up with God Himself. Meanwhile, the rest of us flesh and blood members of Christ's Body, the Church, will continue to contend for Him.

Then what of the concept of a "teaching Church"? Many things that plague our modern world are not *directly* addressed by Scripture. Contraception, abortion, in vitro fertilization, cloning, nuclear war and a host of other things do *not* have anything specifically addressing their rightness or wrongness in Scripture. Sure, there are passages that can be referenced to address them (the Catholic Church does, in fact, use those passages), but there are no passages that directly deal with them. With some, such as IVF and cloning, there was absolutley no way to anticipate, 2000 years ago, the need to develop traditional teaching against them. And with all of my examples, plus, of course, many others, they are certainly crucial questions, but if, as you contend, all such crucial questions have been crystallized in Scripture, where are the citations?

There aren't any. Passages are cited by the teaching Church that merely allude to these sorts of issues, as if by derivation. The Church can adequately address them through its authority to interpret Scripture. But, clearly, not "all *crucial*" tradition has been "crystallized" in Scripture to deal with these things.

But now we're back to authority. Nothing can or will be done by the generic "Christian Church" about such things as the modern ills listed above, because it is hopelessly divided in authority. The Catholic Church, among the many, says one thing, and there can always be found another Christian denomination in opposition. And both cite scriptural passages to back their position. That's just considering two groups. In reality, there are often nearly as many positions as there are denominations. Evil triumphs in such a climate. Jesus prayed as He did in John 17, especially vv. 20-21, for good reason.

??? For the simple reason that, while some latitude (but not complete latitude) is given in the interpretation of Scripture, no latitude is given in the determination of what is Scripture.

Not yet, anyway. But the question still remains, Why? Part of Protestant antinomianism is a consistent theme amongst Protestants and crypto-protestants of anti-authoritarianism, specifically anti-papalism. I find that some of the post-reformation churches reject the Trinity as a mere Romish ornamentation of the Scriptures.

From a fundamentalist, as opposed to protestant, point of view, the Scriptures were well identified by the church long before the beginning of the Established church in thr fourth century.

Sorry, but the Church was established on Pentecost by the Paraclete. The canon was decidied by several church councils over the centuries. The protestants are loath to admit that the Roman Church gave us the canon of Scripture and that Luther eliminated books that he did not find amenable to his theology. Luther choosing canon leaves the canon open to Anyone choosing canon. I can find no principle in Protestantism that authoritively decrees otherwise.

Protestantism works on the axiom that the Bible they use is definitive, yet they cannot say why they know it's definitive, it's just is. There is no super-authority they can use to justify their reasoning, but it requires this point to justify their claims of interpretation as being a valid way to truth.

Because it's axiom not based on solid ground (not here messing with the Scripture's holiness. I know how we got the Canon, and why it is good), when you get to churches wanting to validate things which are in the Bible as sinful, or unlicit, because they don't accept a real reason why the Bible is valid, it's just a hop, skip and a jump to thinking that "The Scriptures aren't really God-breathed, we can tell because of critical analysis, so we can do whatever the spirit leads us to do."

There is no ultimate authority in such situations - UNLESS you realize that the power that Jesus gave to the apostles and that was passed down to the bishops allowed them to make these sorts of decisions, guided by the Holy Spirit. And if they were given that type of authority, who are we to say that the church they governed was not correct in its teachings?

"Was this Holy and early Father wrong, S?"

No. I see nothing changed in that sermon.

"Yet the very purpose of the Incarnation was to save mankind from a bondage which by its own efforts and power it was unable to do."

His original conclusion and love never wavered. The gift of life He bestowed was never to be abandoned. 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's the same now as it was in the beginning.

I gave Matt 13:35, which is Isaiah 6:9-10. Another parable is relevant here. Luke 20:9-18
He went on to tell the people this parable: "A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time. At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants so they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed. He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out.

Then the owner of the vineyard said, 'What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.'

But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. 'This is the heir,' they said. 'Let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

"What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others." When the people heard this, they said, "May this never be!"

Jesus looked directly at them and asked, "Then what is the meaning of that which is written:
" 'The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone[Psalm 118:22]? Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."

Verse 19 goes on to say, "The teachers of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immediately, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people." God spoke the parable to include them, and all the descendent's of Adam like them. The fruit was His harvest.

Let's look at this phrase from Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness,..." That's how the creation of man begins. That is the Father and the Son. Man was not created with the Holy Spirit. They would develop their own spirits. John 6:45, "It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me." [Isaiah 54:13] Without the Holy Spirit, both the Father and the Son are simply sentient bodies with potential. The Holy Spirit is the spirit these 2 persons developed to make them the Persons they are.

Let's look at part of your excerpt from the Paschal Sermon of +John Chrysostomos.

"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?

Now God came, of a virgin birth. He was fully man. That means He was conceived and born an empty slate. Now if He really was fully man, how could that be, if He was w/o the propensity to sin attributed by the doctrine of original sin? He was fully man, so God lived the consequences of the garden as all Adam's progeny. He underwent the same temptation as other men, yet He did not sin.

What does wipe out both logic and the impact of the reality of St. John's sermon, is if all of man, except the virgin Mary (some say, that she is the immaculate conception) and Jesus were both different and w/o the propensity to sin given in the doctrine. That's the doctrine, that I already pointed out I don't find in the Bible. The majesty of GOd is that He didn't need to do anything special, or different to develope the Person that He is- the Holy Spirit.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.