Leo XIII on the inerrancy of scripture (from Providentissimus Deus) [ecum.]

PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

To Our Venerable Brethren, All Patriarchs, Primates,
Archbishops, and Bishops of the Catholic World, in Grace
and Communion with the Apostolic See.

17. To prove, to expound, to illustrate Catholic Doctrine by the legitimate and skilful interpretation of the Bible, is much; but there is a second part of the subject of equal importance and equal difficulty - the maintenance in the strongest possible way of its full authority. This cannot be done completely or satisfactorily except by means of the living and proper magisterium of the Church. The Church, "by reason of her wonderful propagation, her distinguished sanctity and inexhaustible fecundity in good, her Catholic unity, and her unshaken stability, is herself a great and perpetual motive of credibility, and an unassailable testimony to her own Divine mission."(45) But since the divine and infallible magisterium of the Church rests also on the authority of Holy Scripture, the first thing to be done is to vindicate the trustworthiness of the sacred records at least as human documents, from which can be clearly proved, as from primitive and authentic testimony, the Divinity and the mission of Christ our Lord, the institution of a hierarchical Church and the primacy of Peter and his successors. It is most desirable, therefore, that there should be numerous members of the clergy well prepared to enter upon a contest of this nature, and to repulse hostile assaults, chiefly trusting in that armour of God recommended by the Apostle,(46) but also not unaccustomed to modern methods of attack. This is beautifully alluded to by St. John Chrysostom, when describing the duties of priests: "We must use every endeavour that the 'Word of God may dwell in us abundantly'(47) and not merely for one kind of fight must we be prepared-for the contest is many-sided and the enemy is of every sort; and they do not all use the same weapons nor make their onset in the same way. Wherefore it is needful that the man who has to contend against all should be acquainted with the engines and the arts of all-that he should be at once archer and slinger, commandant and officer, general and private soldier, foot-soldier and horseman, skilled in sea-fight and in siege; for unless he knows every trick and turn of war, the devil is well able, if only a single door be left open, to get in his fierce bands and carry off the sheep."(48) The sophisms of the enemy and his manifold arts of attack we have already touched upon. Let us now say a word of advice on the means of defence. The first means is the study of the Oriental languages and of the art of criticism. These two acquirements are in these days held in high estimation, and therefore the clergy, by making themselves more or less fully acquainted with them as time and place may demand, will the better be able to discharge their office with becoming credit; for they must make themselves "all to all,"(49) always "ready to satisfy every one that asketh them a reason for the hope that is in them."(50) Hence it is most proper that Professors of Sacred Scripture and theologians should master those tongues in which the sacred Books were originally written; and it would be well that Church students also should cultivate them, more especially those who aspire to academic degrees. And endeavours should be made to establish in all academic institutions - as has already been laudably done in many - chairs of the other ancient languages, especially the Semitic, and of subjects connected therewith, for the benefit principally of those who are intended to profess sacred literature. These latter, with a similar object in view, should make themselves well and thoroughly acquainted with the art of true criticism. There has arisen, to the great detriment of religion, an inept method, dignified by the name of the "higher criticism," which pretends to judge of the origin, integrity and authority of each Book from internal indications alone. It is clear, on the other hand, that in historical questions, such as the origin and the handing down of writings, the witness of history is of primary importance, and that historical investigation should be made with the utmost care; and that in this matter internal evidence is seldom of great value, except as confirmation. To look upon it in any other light will be to open the door to many evil consequences. It will make the enemies of religion much more bold and confident in attacking and mangling the Sacred Books; and this vaunted "higher criticism" will resolve itself into the reflection of the bias and the prejudice of the critics. It will not throw on the Scripture the light which is sought, or prove of any advantage to doctrine; it will only give rise to disagreement and dissension, those sure notes of error, which the critics in question so plentifully exhibit in their own persons; and seeing that most of them are tainted with false philosophy and rationalism, it must lead to the elimination from the sacred writings of all prophecy and miracle, and of everything else that is outside the natural order.

18. In the second place, we have to contend against those who, making an evil use of physical science, minutely scrutinize the Sacred Book in order to detect the writers in a mistake, and to take occasion to vilify its contents. Attacks of this kind, bearing as they do on matters of sensible experience, are peculiarly dangerous to the masses, and also to the young who are beginning their literary studies; for the young, if they lose their reverence for the Holy Scripture on one or more points, are easily led to give up believing in it altogether. It need not be pointed out how the nature of science, just as it is so admirably adapted to show forth the glory of the Great Creator, provided it be taught as it should be, so if it be perversely imparted to the youthful intelligence, it may prove most fatal in destroying the principles of true philosophy and in the corruption of morality. Hence to the Professor of Sacred Scripture a knowledge of natural science will be of very great assistance in detecting such attacks on the Sacred Books, and in refuting them. There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, "not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known."(51) If dissension should arise between them, here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: "Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so."(52) To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

19. The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith-what they are unanimous in. For "in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,"(55) according to the saying of St. Thomas. And in another place he says most admirably: "When philosophers are agreed upon a point, and it is not contrary to our faith, it is safer, in my opinion, neither to lay down such a point as a dogma of faith, even though it is perhaps so presented by the philosophers, nor to reject it as against faith, lest we thus give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising our faith."(56) The Catholic interpreter, although he should show that those facts of natural science which investigators affirm to be now quite certain are not contrary to the Scripture rightly explained, must nevertheless always bear in mind, that much which has been held and proved as certain has afterwards been called in question and rejected. And if writers on physics travel outside the boundaries of their own branch, and carry their erroneous teaching into the domain of philosophy, let them be handed over to philosophers for

20. The principles here laid down will apply cognate sciences, and especially to History. It is a lamentable fact that there are many who with great labour carry out and publish investigations on the monuments of antiquity, the manners and institutions of nations and other illustrative subjects, and whose chief purpose in all this is too often to find mistakes in the sacred writings and so to shake and weaken their authority. Some of these writers display not only extreme hostility, but the greatest unfairness; in their eyes a profane book or ancient document is accepted without hesitation, whilst the Scripture, if they only find in it a suspicion of error, is set down with the slightest possible discussion as quite untrustworthy. It is true, no doubt, that copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible; this question, when it arises, should be carefully considered on its merits, and the fact not too easily admitted, but only in those passages where the proof is clear. It may also happen that the sense of a passage remains ambiguous, and in this case good hermeneutical methods will greatly assist in clearing up the obscurity. But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. These are the words of the last: "The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author."(57) Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write-He was so present to them-that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture. Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers. "Therefore," says St. Augustine, "since they wrote the things which He showed and uttered to them, it cannot be pretended that He is not the writer; for His members executed what their Head dictated."(58) And St. Gregory the Great thus pronounces: "Most superfluous it is to inquire who wrote these things-we loyally believe the Holy Ghost to be the Author of the book. He wrote it Who dictated it for writing; He wrote it Who inspired its execution. "(59)

21. It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error. And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error, that they laboured earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance - the very passages which in great measure have been taken up by the "higher criticism;" for they were unanimous in laying it down, that those writings, in their entirety and in all their parts were equally from the afflatus of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true. The words of St. Augustine to St. Jerome may sum up what they taught: "On my part I confess to your charity that it is only to those Books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honour and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error. And if in these Books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand."(60)

22. But to undertake fully and perfectly, and with all the weapons of the best science, the defence of the Holy Bible is far more than can be looked for from the exertions of commentators and theologians alone. It is an enterprise in which we have a right to expect the co-operation of all those Catholics who have acquired reputation in any branch of learning whatever. As in the past, so at the present time, the Church is never without the graceful support of her accomplished children; may their services to the Faith grow and increase! For there is nothing which We believe to be more needful than that truth should find defenders more powerful and more numerous than the enemies it has to face; nor is there anything which is better calculated to impress the masses with respect for truth than to see it boldly proclaimed by learned and distinguished men. Moreover, the bitter tongues of objectors will be silenced, or at least they will not dare to insist so shamelessly that faith is the enemy of science, when they see that scientific men of eminence in their profession show towards faith the most marked honour and respect. Seeing, then, that those can do so much for the advantage of religion on whom the goodness of Almighty God has bestowed, together with the grace of the faith, great natural talent, let such men, in this bitter conflict of which the Holy Scripture is the object, select each of them the branch of study most suitable to his circumstances, and endeavour to excel therein, and thus be prepared to repulse with credit and distinction the assaults on the Word of God. And it is Our pleasing duty to give deserved praise to a work which certain Catholics have taken up-that is to say, the formation of societies and the contribution of considerable sums of money, for the purpose of supplying studious and learned men with every kind of help and assistance in carrying out complete studies. Truly an excellent fashion of investing money, and well-suited to the times in which we live! The less hope of public patronage there is for Catholic study, the more ready and the more abundant should be the liberality of private persons-those to whom God has given riches thus willingly making use of their means to safeguard the treasure of His revealed doctrine.

23. In order that all these endeavours and exertions may really prove advantageous to the cause of the Bible, let scholars keep steadfastly to the principles which We have in this Letter laid down. Let them loyally hold that God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures - and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we must then suspend judgment for the time being. There have been objections without number perseveringly directed against the Scripture for many a long year, which have been proved to be futile and are now never heard of; and not unfrequently interpretations have been placed on certain passages of Scripture (not belonging to the rule of faith or morals) which have been rectified by more careful investigations. As time goes on, mistaken views die and disappear; but "truth remaineth and groweth stronger for ever and ever."(61) Wherefore, as no one should be so presumptuous as to think that he understands the whole of the Scripture, in which St. Augustine himself confessed that there was more that he did not know, than that he knew,(62) so, if he should come upon anything that seems incapable of solution, he must take to heart the cautious rule of the same holy Doctor: "It is better even to be oppressed by unknown but useful signs, than to interpret them uselessly and thus to throw off the yoke only to be caught in the trap of error. "(63)

24. Such, Venerable Brethren, are the admonitions and the instructions which, by the help of God, We have thought it well, at the present moment, to offer to you on the study of Holy Scripture. It will now be your province to see that what we have said be observed and put in practice with all due reverence and exactness; that so, we may prove our gratitude to God for the communication to man of the Words of his Wisdom, and that all the good results so much to be desired may be realized, especially as they affect the training of the students of the Church, which is our own great solicitude and the Church's hope. Exert yourselves with willing alacrity, and use your authority and your persuasion in order that these studies may be held in just regard and may flourish, in Seminaries and in the educational Institutions which are under your jurisdiction. Let them flourish in completeness and in happy success, under the direction of the Church, in accordance with the salutary teaching and example of the Holy Fathers and the laudable traditions of antiquity; and, as time goes on, let them be widened and extended as the interests and glory of truth may require - the interest of that Catholic Truth which comes from above, the never-failing source of man's salvation. Finally, We admonish with paternal love all students and ministers of the Church always to approach the Sacred Writings with reverence and piety; for it is impossible to attain to the profitable understanding thereof unless the arrogance of "earthly" science be laid aside, and there be excited in the heart the holy desire for that wisdom "which is from above." In this way the intelligence which is once admitted to these sacred studies, and thereby illuminated and strengthened, will acquire a marvellous facility in detecting and avoiding the fallacies of human science, and in gathering and using for eternal salvation all that is valuable and precious; whilst at the same time the heart will grow warm, and will strive with ardent longing to advance in virtue and in divine love. "Blessed are they who examine His testimonies; they shall seek Him with their whole heart. "(64)

25. And now, filled with hope in the divine assistance, and trusting to your pastoral solicitude - as a pledge of heavenly grace and a sign of Out special goodwill - to you all, and to the Clergy and the whole flock entrusted to you, We lovingly impart in Our Lord the Apostolic Benediction.

Given at St. Peter's, at Rome, the 18th day of November, 1893, the eighteenth year of Our Pontificate.

FK: “It was my understanding that the Consensus Patrum, with the consent of the laity, was infallible.”

You’ve got it wrong, FK. The “consent” of the laity involves the dogmatic declarations of Ecumenical Councils. The Consensus Patrum is just what it says, the consensus of The Fathers on a given subject. It has nothing to do with the “Great Axios” of the people.

Thank you for the correction, but it does not address my point since Ecumenical Councils are Councils of men. I will change it to: "It was my understanding that the Ecumenical Councils of men, with the consent of the laity, were infallible. THAT, by definition, would make them more authoritative than the Bible as you describe above."

The issue remains that the Bible is lessened and men are raised above it.

OK, then the statement by another that "... the Holy Scripture is the 'most authoritative part of the Holy Tradition.'

There is no way that the "Bible" could have played a significant role in the early Church, for the simple reason that the Bible as we know it did not exist for the first four hundred years, and that until then there was no correpsonding theology to fall back on.

The Church didn't even use the Old Testament during the second century, and there are a number of NT books that make no reference to any OT scriptures at all. The second century Church was torn between Marcion's 100% literal reading of the OT and Barnabas' 100% allegorical.

Neither of these ended up with many followers and eventually, somewhere around 360 AD the Church threw out Barnabas (whose Epistle is part of the oldest surviving Christian Bible), who was an Apostolic Father!

The first attempt at bridging the gap between the OT and the NT began with Irinaeus towards the end of the 2nd century, and only because he was looking for an authoritative source that would give the Church's NT some leverage in his dealings with heretical sects which challenged the Church authority and interpretation.

He was the one who devised a "seamless" union between the two Testaments. The real work on Christian theology really doesn't begin to take off until the 3rd century, when Origen began his colossal work or creating a unified theology.

Reasonably uniformed Christian theology really did not exist for the first 200-plus years since Christ, and even after that only loosely until the Nicene Council in 325 AD, and the Canon until 396 AD! Until then, the Church was completely heterodox in her beliefs and practices, and her approach to the scriptures.

I have previously posted what different Fathers considered as canonical, based on their writings, and they were as different as night and day. Along with the Origen's work, the canon slowly began to take shape by concensus, but was still full of books that were later deemed "profane."

The idea of Trinity was likewise very heterodox. The names were there but outside of the three Hypostases mentioned in the Bible (and not even mentioned as Hypostases!), there was no uniform theology as to how they relate, what their nature is, and so on.

The OT and the NT writings were the basis, the mine so to say, that Origen and others used to "dig" for answers and hints, so in a sense, the "Bible" was the basis, the foundation of their postulates, but the authority that made the Bible and the Trinitarian and Christological dogmas unquestioned foundation of the post-Nicene Christian faith (and by that I include all traditional Protestant groups) was the concensus patrum reached in the early Councils.

The scriptures were the "raw" material, and the Councils the blacksmiths that forged theology on which all of Christianity rests. And the, in a brilliant stroke of circular logic, the Church canonized the Bible, completing the loop!

So, the Church, by consensus, and based on a belief, gave itself the authority to infallibly define what God is, based on the "raw" material found to be useful for the narrow agenda, in various writings the Church later canonized, while rejecitng (and even destorying) everything that did nto suit her purpose and goal. And all this was made "legitimate" by claiming the Holy Spirit was behind it!

First, by consensus, you give yourself (arrogate) the power to make something "holy," then you use that "authority" to proclaim that something is "holy," which "confirms" that you are "holy" because you base your "holiness" on that which you made "holy."

Sometimes, I wonder if people claim their believe in God simply because they consider themselves holier than others, and God is nothing but a projection of their own ego.

“So, the Church, by consensus, and based on a belief, gave itself the authority to infallibly define what God is, based on the “raw” material found to be useful for the narrow agenda, in various writings the Church later canonized, while rejecitng (and even destorying) everything that did nto suit her purpose and goal. And all this was made “legitimate” by claiming the Holy Spirit was behind it!

First, by consensus, you give yourself (arrogate) the power to make something “holy,” then you use that “authority” to proclaim that something is “holy,” which “confirms” that you are “holy” because you base your “holiness” on that which you made “holy.”

Sometimes, I wonder if people claim their believe in God simply because they consider themselves holier than others, and God is nothing but a projection of their own ego.”

Sorry Kosta mou, I’m with Alex on this one...except for this part:

“...people claim their believe in God simply because they consider themselves holier than others....”

I know that’s why I do it, but of course I am Greek and therefore excused!

Kosta: And all this was made "legitimate" by claiming the Holy Spirit was behind it!

Alex: I don't have a problem with most of your essay till this point. Why the sarcasm?

There is no sarcasm, Alex. What I write is not visceral. Claiming the Holy Spirit is no different that Paul using Christ as his authoirty. Inviisble, untangible authority that no one has to prove as long as you convince someone to believe you. That was the Church's only "authority" from Paul onward.
Imagine if you sit at a restaurant table and the waiter appears to place something inviisble on your table and then ask you if everything was okay. You would positively call him nuts. A nd if he inisted that there was spiritual food on your table, and that Gos is guiding him, you may call 911.
In many ways that's exactly what the Church is doing, whether it nios through sacrametns or trough the Bible; the proverbial waiter is the same.
Trouble is, every religion on this earth makes similar (and in my opinion pathetic) claims and for a good reason (there is not proof!). There is nothing inherently "holy" about the Bible or the God of Israel unless you are willing to believe there is. And then it is presneted as true, because this God "guides" you.
How is that different from all other gods and religions on this earth? There is not a shred of palpable, substantial evidence to prove any of this, except by blind faith. So, then let's keep it on that level. The problem arises when someone's perosonal conviciton is elevated to the rank of absolute "fact." And the one, looking at the empty table and wondering if the waiter is nuts is suddenly nuts?!?
The history of the Church, the development of the theology and the canon indicates nothing divinely spiritual. It's all human sturggle to come up with the most convincing argument, nothing but wars of opinions, just like here on the FR, those who believe in pink unincorns on Jupiter vs. those who don't. Might as well argue over how many angels can fit on the tip of the needle. The "profit" is about the same.

There is not a shred of palpable, substantial evidence to prove any of this

Well, faith is a theological virtue for a reason -- this reason precisely. However, you are not correct that there is not a shread of evidence. The Resurrection of Christ is one miracle that is attested to by hundreds of witnesses, and other miracles of Christ have witnesses as well. Obviously, there are skeptics denying all of that, but you cannot say that Christianity operates on faith alone. Our faith is faith in the evidence that the Church has preserved and passed on.

Next, there is no reason to only take our evidence and not take the Jewish evidence of the Old Testament miracles. I would admit that some of them look less forensically convincing and perhaps some of them are allegoric. But we cannot a priori dismiss their evidence while holding on to our evidence.

Further, the Old Testament miracle all point to the Chrisitan religion. For example Jesus saw in Jonas swallowed by a fish a prefigurement of Himself. The talking donkey has a spiritual meaning, as I struggled to show, that has to do with the inerranct character of true prophecy. So if God has a message to us, and miracles are His language, why not have faith in all of them?

After all, what is easier, for a donkey to talk or for a man to come from the dead?

Further, the Old Testament miracle all point to the Chrisitan religion. For example Jesus saw in Jonas swallowed by a fish a prefigurement of Himself

With that interpretation I agree. But that doesn't prove that Jonah story actually happened. :)

After all, what is easier, for a donkey to talk or for a man to come from the dead?

Frankly, Alex, dear friend, if it is faith it really doesn't matter, does it? If in your imagination you believe that you can actually fly who am I to say you can't fly in your imagination? :)

I just have a problem when someone says "as a matter of fact I can fly" and then not be able to prove it factually. He may have believed it, but he confused his faith with facts; he could not distinguish his imagination from the reality.

What? I don't understand this at all. For the purposes of it being taught, the fact that the Bible was not in an organized and printed form for a few hundred years is irrelevant. Its contents were taught from the beginning. Do you really think that the theology of the Bible was unknown UNTIL the Bible was formally put together? That would mean there was no such thing as Christianity until hundreds of years after Christ, AND that the Apostles did not individually TEACH Christianity. You can't mean that. :)

The first attempt at bridging the gap between the OT and the NT began with Irinaeus towards the end of the 2nd century, and only because he was looking for an authoritative source that would give the Church's NT some leverage in his dealings with heretical sects which challenged the Church authority and interpretation.

There is no "gap" between the OT and NT (aside from 400 years). They describe the same God. Naturally, that God is different from the God of those who think that only a small part of the Bible describes God.

That can't be right. Paul specifically told the Bereans to compare the NT God he was telling them about to the OT God in scriptures to make sure they were the same. If you want to say that Orthodox theology did not come along for a few hundred years that is fine, but the OT and NT God being one is not something that had to be invented.

Believers knew. Of course not all who put out "theology" were believers. I make no judgment as to names, but it is not surprising at all that individual beliefs were all over the place.

So, the Church, by consensus, and based on a belief, gave itself the authority to infallibly define what God is, based on the "raw" material found to be useful for the narrow agenda, in various writings the Church later canonized, while rejecting (and even destroying) everything that did not suit her purpose and goal. And all this was made "legitimate" by claiming the Holy Spirit was behind it!

I certainly can't argue that this is a view out there. I have read many posts consistent with it. But if the Church gave itself the authority, then what would be the problem with saying that it is a man-made faith?

Sometimes, I wonder if people claim their believe in God simply because they consider themselves holier than others, and God is nothing but a projection of their own ego.

I'm sure there are many examples of that across Christianity, but a true believer would have no use in comparing himself to anyone else. The Bible teaches plainly on this very subject.

Do you really think that the theology of the Bible was unknown UNTIL the Bible was formally put together?

The first attempt at theology was not made until c. 190 AD (late 2nd century) by Irenaeus of Lyons, but that was rudimentary. It was not until well into the 3rd century that Origen of all people really set the stage for a systematized Christian theology, which was officially established in 325 AD at the Council of Nicaea (First Ecumenical, aka Nicene Council).

The Trinitarian creed was confirmed and wastly expanded by the second Council in 381 AD and the Bible was canonzied at the local African Third Council of Carthage in 397 AD, following the canon of Athansius of Alexandria form c. 360 AD.

Moreover, extant Bibles dating from circa middle of the 4th century contain books that are no longer considered canonical. Any copies of the New Testament books prior to the Nicene Council are mysteriously missing (presumbaly destroyed by the Church), but fragments and indirect evidence shows that the post-Nicene sources have been heavily redacted to more closely reflect the new trinitarian dogma of the Church.

That would mean there was no such thing as Christianity until hundreds of years after Christ, AND that the Apostles did not individually TEACH Christianity

idea

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.