[Reedolo]

I've been hanging around the theology forum for the past couple of days, and in two different threads the subject came up of what exactly is our authority?

I could be wrong, but I think that most Protestants would say that the Bible is their final authority.

Catholics on the other hand I believe would say that the Church is their final authority.


The Scripture passage that Protestants would most likely cite to support their view is this one:

2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

In another forum, I pointed out two things about this passge:

1) St. Paul was referring to the Old Testament Scriptures when he said this, since the New Testament did not exist at this time. The canon of the New Testament would not be established for another 300 years, so I think it would require some stretch of the imagination to say that in this passage St. Paul was referring to the Bible as we have it today. I am not saying that the NT is not inspired, I am simply saying that the Bible does not attest to it's own inspiration, but instead it relies on an external source.

2) Even if Protestants do claim that this verse refers to all of Scripture, there's still the problem of the canon of the New Testament. Since the Bible does not include a canon (list of inspired texts) which are to be included as Scripture, then the canon of the New Testament (and of the whole Bible for that matter) must come from an external source. This is why Sola Scriptura ultimately fails, I think.



So I have been arguing that Protestants, when they accept the Bible as the infallible Word of God but reject the authority of the Church, are simply relying on a presumption that the Bible is the word of God. In other words, they presuppose the Bible as their ultimate authority and then use it to authenticate itself. (It doesn't really authenticate itself, but they say it does)

It's like, even IF the Bible did refer to itself and claim that it was infallible (which it doesnt), it wouldn't matter unless that original statement itself was infallible. So no matter what you always have to start out with a presumption that what the Bible says is true.

I, on the other hand, consider the Church to be my ultimate authority, and the Church authenticates the Bible, not vice versa. But someone in the other forum brought up an interesting point: I am presupposing the Church to be my ultimate authority. So really all I am doing is moving from one presumption to another.

In the end, our final authority will have to authenticate itself, right? Because if we look back to something else to authenticate our final authority, then it's not a final authority anymore. So our final authority has to be self-authenticating. Right? No matter what our final authority is, we will have to presuppose that it is infallible in order for it to be our final authority. We will always be resting on a presumption no matter what. Right?

My thinking is that it makes more sense to presuppose the Church as our final authority, because at least the Church claims to be the final authority. The Bible makes no such claim about itself, nor is it self-authenticating, nor are the books contained in the Bible mutually inclusive of one another. The canon of the Bible relies on an external source, right? Does it make more sense to presuppose the Church as our final authority than to presuppose the Bible as our final authority?

I think it does, but in the end we have to presuppose something, don't we?

I would like to hear some comments on what it means to presuppose something as our final authority, and what it means to have faith. Because ultimately I think it all comes down to faith.

And that would lead to another question... what exactly does it mean to have faith?

This is really interesting to me.... I need comments, please!

[goldenchild]

Where do we get Scripture from? The Church. It is the only way we can ever know what Scripture really says. If we don't have an infallible guide, how can we understand infallible truth? Without it we have thousands upon thousands of variations in teaching all claiming to know what Scripture teaches, this causes undue division among those who claim to follow Christ and is certainly not what He intended. Which is exactly why Scripture itself gives us the answer in 1 Tim. 3:15 that the Church is to be the pillar and foundation of truth. This means that the truth leans on and is supported by the Church. Scripture doesn't claim to be the ultimate authority. Because all books need to be given an understanding by the author to be properly exegeted(is that even a word? ). If the Holy Spirit wrote the Scriptures(which of course He did through the apostles), and if the Holy Spirit guides the Church in all truth(which of course is also obvious), then it is simple that we have the means through the guidance of the Spirit in the Church, to listen to how He wants us to understand His own Word.

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

Where do we get Scripture from? The Church. It is the only way we can ever know what Scripture really says. If we don't have an infallible guide, how can we understand infallible truth? Without it we have thousands upon thousands of variations in teaching all claiming to know what Scripture teaches, this causes undue division among those who claim to follow Christ and is certainly not what He intended. Which is exactly why Scripture itself gives us the answer in 1 Tim. 3:15 that the Church is to be the pillar and foundation of truth. This means that the truth leans on and is supported by the Church. Scripture doesn't claim to be the ultimate authority. Because all books need to be given an understanding by the author to be properly exegeted(is that even a word? ). If the Holy Spirit wrote the Scriptures(which of course He did through the apostles), and if the Holy Spirit guides the Church in all truth(which of course is also obvious), then it is simple that we have the means through the guidance of the Spirit in the Church, to listen to how He wants us to understand His own Word.

Thanks. But that's not really what I was talking about. I know that the Church established the Bible and is it's infallible interpreter. My concern is how do we defend the fact that we accept the Church as our final authority instead of the Bible. Especially when people criticize the Church of having endless conflicts and contradictions. Also what exactly does it mean to have faith, and is there any way faith can be certain? Is there any way to be 100% certain about something that you have to believe in faith?

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

I could be wrong, but I think that most Protestants would say that the Bible is their final authority.

Catholics on the other hand I believe would say that the Church is their final authority.

Quite correct. Also, my main problem with the Catholic Church.

at least the Church claims to be the final authority.

This is just ridiculous. If I claim to be the final authority does that make me a more plausible authority than the Bible? No. Claiming to have authority does not give one authority.

I think the problem with any kind of discussion like this is that we completely lose sight of reality. So, here's a reality check:

The New Testament is a collection of writings written by people who were acting under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They did not consider themselves to be writing a religious text, so there would be no reason whatsoever for them to come up with a list of writings that were Scripture.

Because their writings were inspired by God, however, they are Scripture. Both Protestants and Catholics accept this. The members of the early church realized that there had to be some guidelines on what was considered Scripture and what was not. There is nothing odd or mystical about this. It's a common sense thing.

The early church, under the Holy Spirit's guiding, selected for canonization the books that agreed with God's known revelation, were written by reliable sources, and were profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. This selection is NOT a display of final authority, nor does it have much to do with interpreting Scripture. The church's responsibility was to identify which writings were Scripture. Assuming they succeeded--which both Protestants and Catholics do--the writings they selected are the infallible Word of God (since that's what Scripture is).

Let me use an analogy. Suppose you ran a school and were selecting a history curriculum. You would likely look to various sources to determine which history book was the most accurate and thorough. Once you had selected a book, though, you would use it. You would not keep looking back to the people who had helped you make the choice to interpret everything in the book. The very fact that they had approved the book would make that unnecessary. The book would be a true and thorough account of history and sufficient for teaching and educating.

A similar thing happens with Scripture. The early church correctly identified which writings were from God. The fact that they're identification was correct makes them unnecessary for further interpretation (not unhelpful, but unnecessary). The writings themselves are the Word of God and suitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. Once it has been established that the writings are Scripture, we can trust in the writings themselves. We had to trust in the early church to correctly identify Scripture, but that's it. If they succeeded in their job, we can now trust solely in the Word of God. Hence, Sola Scriptura.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Daniel

[flip815]

The Bible must be our authority because it is God's Word. It claims to be God's Word. I am confident that the canon that we have today must be the inspired, infallible word of God. Wayne Grudem wrote, "We can rest our confidence in this fact in the faithfulness of God our Father, who would not lead all His people for nearly two thousand years to trust as His Word something that is not."

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Quite correct. Also, my main problem with the Catholic Church.

This is just ridiculous. If I claim to be the final authority does that make me a more plausible authority than the Bible? No. Claiming to have authority does not give one authority.

It makes a lot of difference. Scripture makes no claim to be the final authority, therefore simply supposing it to be a final authority is unscriptural. Your entire view of scripture is unscriptural and based on a presumption. The canon of scripture is dependent upon an external source, so therefore I don't see how it can possibly be the final authority.

I think the problem with any kind of discussion like this is that we completely lose sight of reality. So, here's a reality check:

The New Testament is a collection of writings written by people who were acting under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They did not consider themselves to be writing a religious text, so there would be no reason whatsoever for them to come up with a list of writings that were Scripture.

Because their writings were inspired by God, however, they are Scripture. Both Protestants and Catholics accept this. The members of the early church realized that there had to be some guidelines on what was considered Scripture and what was not. There is nothing odd or mystical about this. It's a common sense thing.

The early church, under the Holy Spirit's guiding, selected for canonization the books that agreed with God's known revelation, were written by reliable sources, and were profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. This selection is NOT a display of final authority, nor does it have much to do with interpreting Scripture. The church's responsibility was to identify which writings were Scripture. Assuming they succeeded--which both Protestants and Catholics do--the writings they selected are the infallible Word of God (since that's what Scripture is).

Let me use an analogy. Suppose you ran a school and were selecting a history curriculum. You would likely look to various sources to determine which history book was the most accurate and thorough. Once you had selected a book, though, you would use it. You would not keep looking back to the people who had helped you make the choice to interpret everything in the book. The very fact that they had approved the book would make that unnecessary. The book would be a true and thorough account of history and sufficient for teaching and educating.

A similar thing happens with Scripture. The early church correctly identified which writings were from God. The fact that they're identification was correct makes them unnecessary for further interpretation (not unhelpful, but unnecessary). The writings themselves are the Word of God and suitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. Once it has been established that the writings are Scripture, we can trust in the writings themselves. We had to trust in the early church to correctly identify Scripture, but that's it. If they succeeded in their job, we can now trust solely in the Word of God. Hence, Sola Scriptura.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Daniel

I don't think you understand the Catholic perspective. It is not out of disrespect for the written Word of God that we say the Bible is dependent on the authority of the Church, but out of a deep respect for that written Word.

The Bible is not simply a collection of writings that are beneficial for teaching and reproof. It's much more than that. Every word of the Bible is God-breathed. Every word is inspired by the Holy Spirit. At least, that's how I've always understood it. When the Chuch determined which books were inspired and thus belonged in the canon of the NT, she wasn't just looking through and picking the ones that supported her teaching and then saying that those books were good and benefecial, she was infallibly declaring that these writings are the written word of God and also infallible. Thus the infallibily of Scripture rests on the authority and infallibility of the Church.

There are MANY books that are beneficial for teaching and reproof. Every time the Church grants the Nihil Obstat (Latin: There is nothing to be objected to) and/or the Imprimatur (Latin: Let it be printed), she is declaring that work is free of doctrinal error and beneficial for teaching. When I am buying a book that teaches about the Catholic faith, those are the first things I look for. If I see the Nihil Obstat and/or the Imprimatur then I know that the books have been declared free of doctrinal error. There are thousands of books that the Church has declared beneficial for teaching, but the Church has only declared 27 books (73 counting both the Old and New Testaments) to be the written word of God. There's such a big difference.

It's a pretty big deal to claim that something is the written word of God. There was much more involved than just picking the writings that were benefecial for teaching. Paul had many more writings that I'm sure were benefecial for teaching and reproof, but they weren't the written word of God, so they weren't included in Canon. The Church, acting as always under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, infallibly declared which writings were Scripture and which weren't.

In other words, the Bible is dependent upon an external source and thus it cannot be the final authority. Jesus established a Church, not a Bible... and 300 years later that Church established a Bible. Jesus gave teaching authority to the Apostles, and to their successors (see Acts 1:15-26 where we have the first example of Apostolic Succession), and that authority has been handed down the Magisterium of the Church today. Jesus gave authority to the Church, not to every person who might come along and interpret Scripture for themselves (as can be seen by the tens of thousands of Protestant sects which have resulted from individual interpretation of Scripture. God wants to unite His people as one. Satan wants to divide God's people against themselves. It looks to me like Satan is having a field day with Protestant Christianity).


Anyways we're getting off topic. Neither you nor goldenchild have addressed my main concern. I didnt start this thread as an attack on the Protestant view. It is intended to discuss what it means to have a final authority and what it means to have faith. Read my original post carefully.

If you would like to discuss Sola Scriptura, then we can start another thread on that (if there isn't one already, I'm pretty sure there probably is), or discuss it in the Catholic Q&A forum.


take care,

[flip815]

Every word of the Bible is God-breathed. Every word is inspired by the Holy Spirit. At least, that's how I've always understood it. When the Chuch determined which books were inspired and thus belonged in the canon of the NT, she wasn't just looking through and picking the ones that supported her teaching and then saying that those books were good and benefecial, she was infallibly declaring that these writings are the written word of God and also infallible.

You admit that the Bible is God-breathed, so how can you deny its authority? Are you saying that God's words have no authority?

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by flip815

You admit that the Bible is God-breathed, so how can you deny its authority? Are you saying that God's words have no authority?

That's not what I'm saying at all. I would never deny the authority of the Bible. But it's important to realize that the reason I believe in the Bible in the first place is because I first believe in the authority of the Church whence it came. I've said it before... the Bible didn't fall out of the sky intact the way we have it today. The canon of scripture is totally dependant on an external source... the Church. ... hence why the Church is my final authority. It's not as though I believe in two contradicting authorities, since the Church and the Bible do not contradict one another. Rather, the Bible is a part of the revelation which is the deposit of faith given to the Church. And the Church is the guardian and interpreter of that revelation, a part of which is the Bible. I'll say it again, Jesus Christ establish a Church and that CHURCH established the Bible 300 YEARS LATER. Jesus gave authority to the Church, not to every individual interpreter of Scripture.


WILL SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER MY ORIGINAL POST? CATHOLICPRIEST, ANYONE?! This thread is getting so off-topic. I did not want this to be a debate between Catholics and Protestants. We can start a Sola Scriptura thread for that. I want feedback (especially from Catholics) as to what it means to have a final authority and what it means to have faith and whether or not faith can ever been 100% sure.

[Reedolo]

Ok. i just re-read my original post, and I did bring up Sola Scriptura, so I can see why the Protestants are talking about that. However, if you read the whole thing, that was not the main point of my post. If ya'll would like to continue discussing sola scriptura in here that's fine. I dont mind. As long as some Catholic does eventually comment on my original concern. thanks.

Reed

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

It makes a lot of difference. Scripture makes no claim to be the final authority, therefore simply supposing it to be a final authority is unscriptural. Your entire view of scripture is unscriptural and based on a presumption. The canon of scripture is dependent upon an external source, so therefore I don't see how it can possibly be the final authority.

The canon comes from God. The measure by which we determine if a book is scripture didn't come from an external source. The measure is divine inspiration. That certainly didn't come from "The Church."

If you're refering to the canon list, you're still wrong. You're still hung up on 325 as if it was a magically year when these books suddenly became inspired. Its nonsense. All 325 did was finally compile a list of books that were already inspired.

And you continue to IGNORE scripture that has been presented to you defending the belief that the New Testament authors WHO HAD authority considered their writings inspired and on the same level as scripture. This is what matters....not the year 325. Without the authors making these claims they wouldn't have been included in 325.

[flip815]

The Bible does not depend on the church for its truthfulness. The Bible is God's word, inspired by Him, and He is above the church. Also God was at work in the assembling of the canon. Grudem also wrote, "The preservation and correct assembling of the canon of Scripture should ultimately be seen by believers, then, not as a part of church history subsequent to God's central acts of redemption, but as an integral part of the history of redmeption itself. Just as God was at work in creation, in the calling of his people Israel, in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, and in the early work and writings of the apostles, so God was at work in the preservation and assembling together of the books of Scripture for the benefit of his people for the entire church age. Ultimately, then, we base our confidence in the correctness of our present canon on the faithfulness of God."

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by Sean

The canon comes from God. The measure by which we determine if a book is scripture didn't come from an external source. The measure is divine inspiration. That certainly didn't come from "The Church."

If you're refering to the canon list, you're still wrong. You're still hung up on 325 as if it was a magically year when these books suddenly became inspired. Its nonsense. All 325 did was finally compile a list of books that were already inspired.

And you continue to IGNORE scripture that has been presented to you defending the belief that the New Testament authors WHO HAD authority considered their writings inspired and on the same level as scripture. This is what matters....not the year 325. Without the authors making these claims they wouldn't have been included in 325.

Oh it's you again. We went through this yesterday. Must we again? I'm trying to get a Catholic perspective on what it means to have a final authority.

I don't view the A.D. 325 as a magical year. As a matter of fact I'm not sure if the canon of scripture was finalized then. It might not have been finalized until the council of Trent. I've got a book on order called "Where We Got the Bible"... once i read it i'm sure i'll know more about dates and stuff. The point is that the Church infallibly declared the Scripture was Scripture. I don't want to discuss this any more. I'm waiting for Catholics to respond to my original post which deals with more than just Sola Scriptura.

Nobody is denying that the canon comes from God. The disagreement is whether or not God did this through the instrumentality of an infallible Church.

I don't ignore scripture that is presented to me. I quoted the main one in my original post.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

So I have been arguing that Protestants, when they accept the Bible as the infallible Word of God but reject the authority of the Church, are simply relying on a presumption that the Bible is the word of God. In other words, they presuppose the Bible as their ultimate authority and then use it to authenticate itself. (It doesn't really authenticate itself, but they say it does)

You're attempting to impose Western thought, logic and philosphy onto 2000 year old document written by Jews. Of course you're not going to find our jargon in it.

It's like, even IF the Bible did refer to itself and claim that it was infallible (which it doesnt), it wouldn't matter unless that original statement itself was infallible. So no matter what you always have to start out with a presumption that what the Bible says is true.

How do you have an ultimate standard without presupposing it?

I, on the other hand, consider the Church to be my ultimate authority, and the Church authenticates the Bible, not vice versa. But someone in the other forum brought up an interesting point: I am presupposing the Church to be my ultimate authority. So really all I am doing is moving from one presumption to another.

In the end, our final authority will have to authenticate itself, right? Because if we look back to something else to authenticate our final authority, then it's not a final authority anymore. So our final authority has to be self-authenticating. Right? No matter what our final authority is, we will have to presuppose that it is infallible in order for it to be our final authority. We will always be resting on a presumption no matter what. Right?

I imagine some people might disagree, but its much more a philosophical question than a Roman Catholic question.

My thinking is that it makes more sense to presuppose the Church as our final authority, because at least the Church claims to be the final authority. The Bible makes no such claim about itself, nor is it self-authenticating, nor are the books contained in the Bible mutually inclusive of one another. T

You're once again speaking in terms the Bible writers did not speak. So of course you're not going to find your vocabulary in scripture. Augustine was heavily influenced by Plato. Aquinas was influenced by Aristotle. Greek logic and philosophy is found all throughout Roman Catholic history (I'm not saying this makes it wrong. This is my history too). However, this means we speak in different terms than the authors did. Our understanding of the world is different than theirs. So making big bold claims about how the Bible doesn't speak about your terms really does little to convince me.

The canon of the Bible relies on an external source, right?

As I stated before, this is where you come to a huge vocabulary issue. You believe the church determined the canon. Protestants simply believe the church simply recognizes that which is canon (that which was inspired by God). If Peter had authority and that same authority in Paul, we can merely have to recognize that their writings are canon (God-breathed). Their writings were God breathed regardless of a decision in 325.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

Oh it's you again. We went through this yesterday. Must we again? I'm trying to get a Catholic perspective on what it means to have a final authority.

I don't view the A.D. 325 as a magical year. As a matter of fact I'm not sure if the canon of scripture was finalized then. It might not have been finalized until the council of Trent. I've got a book on order called "Where We Got the Bible"... once i read it i'm sure i'll know more about dates and stuff. The point is that the Church infallibly declared the Scripture was Scripture. I don't want to discuss this any more. I'm waiting for Catholics to respond to my original post which deals with more than just Sola Scriptura.

I'm WELL aware your canon wasn't finalized until 1200 years after 325. Thats why I find your argument so bizzare.

I don't ignore scripture that is presented to me. I quoted the main one in my original post.

And you keep make big bold claims about how the New Testament doesn't authenticate itself. To make this claim you have to ignore 2 Peter 3:16-17 or deny that Peter was authoritative. If you accept that Paul and the other apostles were authoritative, all but 3 books of the New Testament are authoritative. We're left with a discussion over Jude, James and Hebrews. Strong arguments can be made for their canonicity, therefore I accept them.

What exactly is your standard for something to be authenticated?

[Reedolo]

Sean, flip185... I just made a new thread where Catholics and Protestants can debate Sola Scriptura and the authority of the Church, because I don't want this thread to lose it's original topic. So I'll respond to you in that thread.