Universal Church

[francisdesales]

Thanks Joe,
Many people don't understand that there are many other writings by the Apostles, such as the Revelation of Peter that never made it into the Christian, authoratiative "Kanon" and fewer know that the OT was restructured theologically (The literal order of the OT was changed from it's Jewish order) to match the NT Canon's theological view. Besides, 2 Timothy 3:15-16 are kind of a pet peave with me :wink:

TTYL
Jeff

Jeff,

I agree with you, 2 Tim 3 is about the most mis-used verse of Scriptures, a wild attempt to prove something that it cannot, nor was meant to prove. Paul was not giving blanket Scripture coverage to all future writings of the Apostles - or alleged writings of apostles, for that matter.

RR,

I don't think ANYONE here thinks that God did not "write" the Scriptures. However, your means of achieving that knowledge is a circular argument. We know they are Scriptures because the Church that Christ established SAID it is Scriptures. We either believe that declaration or not, because it is NOT self-evident that EACH independent book or letter even BELONGS in that "list" or Kanon. Thus, the complaint you make about Christians not believing God wrote the Scriptures is just sour grapes.

I agree with St. Augustine, who (and mimicing Paul's writing to Timothy in the very chapter you quote elsewhere) knew the Scriptures and apostolic teachings were from God because he knew from where this determination came from.

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it 2 Tim 3:14

"I would not believe the holy Gospels if it were not for the authority of the Holy Catholic Church." St. Augustine, Contra epistolam Manichaei 5, 6: PL 42, 176.
(An aside, it doesn't say "Roman"...)

Augustine knew Ambrose and the Catholic Church, just as Timothy knew Paul and other Catholics - from whom he learned God's teachings from. The teacher's way of life was proof enough that their teachings were from God.

Regards

 

[RadicalReformer]

Frances, perhaps you can clarify what you meant when you said:

and I quote

God didn't "write" the Bible

 

[tblaine74]

"I would not believe the holy Gospels if it were not for the authority of the Holy Catholic Church." St. Augustine, Contra epistolam Manichaei 5, 6: PL 42, 176.
(An aside, it doesn't say "Roman"...)

I think this is especially powerful considering the counsels that canonized the NT were under Augustine’s authority.

Frances, perhaps you can clarify what you meant when you said:

and I quote


God didn't "write" the Bible

RR,
I think what FDS was emphasizing with the quotations is the fact that God did not use a pen to write scripture, He used men.

Besides, 2 Timothy 3:15-16 are kind of a pet peave with me

Jeff,
I think 2 Timothy 3:16-17 are great: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…". Note the word useful. St. Augustine pretty much repeats these words in his writings against heretics to demonstrate the intended use of scripture. He goes on to say something to the effect that beyond being useful in teaching, one could effectively do without it. It is no doubt useful. Though, by what strain of logic it could serve as an authority is beyond me.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Question:

What/Who did those people you were born before Christ and ministered to by Christ rely on so that they knew what the Scriptures (Law, Pslams, and Prophets) that Christ holds them responsible too?

Someone born 20 years before Christ was responsible for knowing the Scriptures and following their commands - how so? How were they able to recognize what was Scripture and what wasn't it?

If they were able to, why are we not able to? Why are some suggesting that we need to turn over that responsbility to some Magesterium?

Isn't it interesting... they decide what is Scripture, and claim that Scripture gives them that authority - but that isn't circular, now is it?

 

[stovebolts]

Hello Rad,

I certainly hope that my written words have not come across harshly. If so, I apologize as being harsh was not my intent. When I am writing, I seem to be a little more to the point as I just write without much thought on how somebody might be reading it. I know I really need to learn how to articulate myself better at times.

I bring this up because you made a comment somehow inferring that I made a claim that somehow God had no hand in Holy Scripture. How you came to that conclusion I’m really not sure, but please, rest assured that I believe scripture when it says that all scripture is by the inspiration of God.

I also believe that scripture has many different faucets in which to be interpreted and some scriptures are even open ended. When I look at 2 Timothy 3:16, there is not doubt that Paul was speaking of the Septuagint which Timothy would have known since he would have been raised with the Septuagint. Furthermore, 2 Timothy is a very sentimental writing to his beloved Timothy as Paul knew his days on earth were numbered as he wrote from his Roman prison cell awaiting his execution. Thus, I don’t believe that I’ve hindered scripture in anyway by setting it in its proper historical context.

In saying this, I know that Paul was in very close relationship to God when he wrote his letter to Timothy and I know that God inspired this wonderful letter for all of us to read. Apparently, the council of the fourth century agreed that this letter was inspired of God, and that it held true to the spirit and teachings of the Septuagint and led by the Spirit, the members of the council admitted this letter into the new canon.

Forgive me if I am critical when I see scripture tossed about when trying to prove a point, but earlier, you made a comment that if an author wrote four books, then all of his books would be part of a cannon. This reasoning does not exist when our current cannon was being compiled. Take for instance the Apostle Peter. Not only did he pen 1 and 2 Peter, but he also wrote the Revelation of Peter, yet the Revelation of Peter is not in our canon. Why is this? Simply put, it did not measure up to the qualifications to become part of the canon. Does this mean that other writings that the Apostles were not inspired by God? Absolutely not. What it simply means is that we view other sacred writing through the lens of what is deemed authoritative, which is Kanon.

Now the big question, can Paul’s words be used outside of its historical context? Absolutely so since it’s ideology is derived from the Septuagint and it holds universal truths. However, in context to my posts, this discussion stemmed from what you posted earlier, which I will post just below this paragraph so we can put this whole discussion back in perspective.

It was never the responsibility of the "Universal Church" to agree upon The Canon of Scripture. The Canon of Scripture was already formed when God wrote the Scriptures.

I'm sorry, I just don't see using 2 Timothy 3:16 as a supporting verse for this comment. If it is, please show me.

In short, the Catholic Church had the responsibility to create the new Canon, and they were very much doing so by being led by the spirit. As a tidbit, having four gospels was of major concern, since there is truly only one gospel. However, the council agreed to include all four in the canon since combined, they covered four unique perspectives.

I hope that this clears up this little mess and I hope that you do not become frustrated. I really do enjoy reading most of your thoughtful posts.

Jeff

 

[RadicalReformer]

Hello Rad,

I certainly hope that my written words have not come across harshly. If so, I apologize as being harsh was not my intent. When I am writing, I seem to be a little more to the point as I just write without much thought on how somebody might be reading it. I know I really need to learn how to articulate myself better at times.

I bring this up because you made a comment somehow inferring that I made a claim that somehow God had no hand in Holy Scripture. How you came to that conclusion I’m really not sure, but please, rest assured that I believe scripture when it says that all scripture is by the inspiration of God.

It was not you that I was directing this comment too. The "offender" as it were, knew who I was referring too.

I also believe that scripture has many different faucets in which to be interpreted and some scriptures are even open ended. When I look at 2 Timothy 3:16, there is not doubt that Paul was speaking of the Septuagint which Timothy would have known since he would have been raised with the Septuagint. Furthermore, 2 Timothy is a very sentimental writing to his beloved Timothy as Paul knew his days on earth were numbered as he wrote from his Roman prison cell awaiting his execution. Thus, I don’t believe that I’ve hindered scripture in anyway by setting it in its proper historical context.

In saying this, I know that Paul was in very close relationship to God when he wrote his letter to Timothy and I know that God inspired this wonderful letter for all of us to read. Apparently, the council of the fourth century agreed that this letter was inspired of God, and that it held true to the spirit and teachings of the Septuagint and led by the Spirit, the members of the council admitted this letter into the new canon.

Forgive me if I am critical when I see scripture tossed about when trying to prove a point, but earlier, you made a comment that if an author wrote four books, then all of his books would be part of a cannon. This reasoning does not exist when our current cannon was being compiled. Take for instance the Apostle Peter. Not only did he pen 1 and 2 Peter, but he also wrote the Revelation of Peter, yet the Revelation of Peter is not in our canon. Why is this? Simply put, it did not measure up to the qualifications to become part of the canon. Does this mean that other writings that the Apostles were not inspired by God? Absolutely not. What it simply means is that we view other sacred writing through the lens of what is deemed authoritative, which is Kanon.

While Paul, or Peter, Matthew or Mark - etc, etc... Are the "authors" - ultimately the Author of Scripture is none other than God himself. Therefore, Revelation of Peter is not in our canon, because it was authored by Peter without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Threfore, while Paul was the physical hand that wrote 2 Timothy - ultimately it was the Holy Spirit who dictated to Paul what to write, thus it was God who Authored the epistle.

 

[RadicalReformer]

what does "God-breathed" mean?

 

[francisdesales]

Frances, perhaps you can clarify what you meant when you said:

and I quote

God didn't "write" the Bible

That God did not directly take a pen or writing instrument and write the Scriptures that we have. This also means He did not "dictate" word for word what would be written. We believe the men who wrote Sacred Scriptures were inspired by God to write what He wanted written, but using THEIR chosen literary genre and limited knowledge to express Himself to mankind.

I believe that Muslims and the Mormons believe that God literally wrote Scriptures and handed it to man. I am not aware of many Christians who believe that, but I wouldn't be surprised. However, we certainly believe that the Scriptures are inspired and are inerrant.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

what does "God-breathed" mean?

God also breathed on the apostles PERSONALLY immediately following the Resurrection, giving them the power to forgive sins...

So why do you consider one (Scriptures) but not the other (apostles)? BOTH are in the so-called Word of God, so how serious are you really when you say you believe that the Bible is the Word of God?

 

[francisdesales]

Question:

Someone born 20 years before Christ was responsible for knowing the Scriptures and following their commands - how so? How were they able to recognize what was Scripture and what wasn't it?

The Jews were aware of whom their leaders were. They were taught the meaning of Scriptures by the Priests and Levites, appointed by God to train men in righteousness. Their leaders told them what was Scriptures. That hasn't changed with Christianity. They each did not take the scrolls and do a scientific survey and personally determine that the scrolls were legitimately from God. That is placing one's pride above God's appointed leaders. We just don't find such individuality on determining the extent of Scriptures in the Bible.

Regards

 

[RadicalReformer]

what does "God-breathed" mean?

God also breathed on the apostles PERSONALLY immediately following the Resurrection, giving them the power to forgive sins...

So why do you consider one (Scriptures) but not the other (apostles)? BOTH are in the so-called Word of God, so how serious are you really when you say you believe that the Bible is the Word of God?

What do you mean that I do not consider the other?

 

[RadicalReformer]

That God did not directly take a pen or writing instrument and write the Scriptures that we have. This also means He did not "dictate" word for word what would be written. We believe the men who wrote Sacred Scriptures were inspired by God to write what He wanted written, but using THEIR chosen literary genre and limited knowledge to express Himself to mankind.

I believe that Muslims and the Mormons believe that God literally wrote Scriptures and handed it to man. I am not aware of many Christians who believe that, but I wouldn't be surprised. However, we certainly believe that the Scriptures are inspired and are inerrant.

Regards

God dictated to the human authors what He wanted written, using human authors to write it. God was able to dictate to them and used them in a way that did not violate their writing skill.

It is good to hear that you believe that the Scriptures are both inspired and inerrant.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Question:

Someone born 20 years before Christ was responsible for knowing the Scriptures and following their commands - how so? How were they able to recognize what was Scripture and what wasn't it?

The Jews were aware of whom their leaders were. They were taught the meaning of Scriptures by the Priests and Levites, appointed by God to train men in righteousness. Their leaders told them what was Scriptures. That hasn't changed with Christianity. They each did not take the scrolls and do a scientific survey and personally determine that the scrolls were legitimately from God. That is placing one's pride above God's appointed leaders. We just don't find such individuality on determining the extent of Scriptures in the Bible.

Regards

Francis - you did not answer the question.

For what you did write, are you suggesting that individuals do not have personal responsibility?

 

[A-Christian]

God dictated to the human authors what He wanted written, using human authors to write it. God was able to dictate to them and used them in a way that did not violate their writing skill.

Let me just throw this out on the table:
I may be mistaken here, but isn't there slight decrepencies between the gospels?
If God were dictating, why would he change the written accounts of what happened?

 

[francisdesales]

The Jews were aware of whom their leaders were. They were taught the meaning of Scriptures by the Priests and Levites, appointed by God to train men in righteousness. Their leaders told them what was Scriptures. That hasn't changed with Christianity. They each did not take the scrolls and do a scientific survey and personally determine that the scrolls were legitimately from God. That is placing one's pride above God's appointed leaders. We just don't find such individuality on determining the extent of Scriptures in the Bible.

Regards

Francis - you did not answer the question.

I highlighted my response for you that pertains to your question (How were they able to recognize what was Scripture and what wasn't it?).. Your question is answered clearly by "their leaders told them what was Scriptures".

For what you did write, are you suggesting that individuals do not have personal responsibility?

Responsibility to do what? Second-guess God and HIS appointed representatives? Once we determine that God has spoken and continues to speaks through men, it is our responsibility to listen and obey.

Does Paul suggest that we second-guess our leaders or him?

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

That God did not directly take a pen or writing instrument and write the Scriptures that we have. This also means He did not "dictate" word for word what would be written. We believe the men who wrote Sacred Scriptures were inspired by God to write what He wanted written, but using THEIR chosen literary genre and limited knowledge to express Himself to mankind.

I believe that Muslims and the Mormons believe that God literally wrote Scriptures and handed it to man. I am not aware of many Christians who believe that, but I wouldn't be surprised. However, we certainly believe that the Scriptures are inspired and are inerrant.

Regards

God dictated to the human authors what He wanted written, using human authors to write it. God was able to dictate to them and used them in a way that did not violate their writing skill.

It is good to hear that you believe that the Scriptures are both inspired and inerrant.

I agree. God did not tell them "word for word" what to write, but what HE wanted written, the underlying message behind the words used, was transmitted to mankind.

Regards

 

[RadicalReformer]

God dictated to the human authors what He wanted written, using human authors to write it. God was able to dictate to them and used them in a way that did not violate their writing skill.

Let me just throw this out on the table:
I may be mistaken here, but isn't there slight decrepencies between the gospels?
If God were dictating, why would he change the written accounts of what happened?

There are not discrepancies, rather different points of view. I believe that God honored the "writer" in His dictation.

 

[RadicalReformer]

The Jews were aware of whom their leaders were. They were taught the meaning of Scriptures by the Priests and Levites, appointed by God to train men in righteousness. Their leaders told them what was Scriptures. That hasn't changed with Christianity. They each did not take the scrolls and do a scientific survey and personally determine that the scrolls were legitimately from God. That is placing one's pride above God's appointed leaders. We just don't find such individuality on determining the extent of Scriptures in the Bible.

Regards

Francis - you did not answer the question.

I highlighted my response for you that pertains to your question (How were they able to recognize what was Scripture and what wasn't it?).. Your question is answered clearly by "their leaders told them what was Scriptures".

For what you did write, are you suggesting that individuals do not have personal responsibility?

Responsibility to do what? Second-guess God and HIS appointed representatives? Once we determine that God has spoken and continues to speaks through men, it is our responsibility to listen and obey.

Does Paul suggest that we second-guess our leaders or him?

Regards

Frances, where did Jesus criticize them for not listening to the "leaders"? Jesus said that they needed to know what was written in the Scriptures! They were to know the Scriptures.

There is a responsibility of the leader and the hearer.

The hearer cannot pass of responsibility like Adam and Eve tried to do.

 

[Imagican]

God dictated to the human authors what He wanted written, using human authors to write it. God was able to dictate to them and used them in a way that did not violate their writing skill.

Let me just throw this out on the table:
I may be mistaken here, but isn't there slight decrepencies between the gospels?
If God were dictating, why would he change the written accounts of what happened?

Yes A, there ARE minor discrepencies. I have found a 'number'. But each and every time that I have prayed upon the ones that i have found, the answer became apparent that they weren't actually discrepencies, but offerings that were 'seen' from a 'different' perspective. NEVER offering something 'different' in entirety or TRUTH.

Even in the OT there are 'differences' in the SAME stories.

But that doesn't mean that these differences offer ANY alteration of TRUTH. For IF there are discrepencies, they are only in interpretation and NOT in content so far as 'truth' is concerned.

Most of the 'differences' in understanding are simply THAT. And MOST of these are due to one trying to make THEIR interpretation FIT what it is that they WANT The Word to say.

How many out there have sat in the churches listening to what they offer and then PLAINLY SEE that what The Word STATES and what they are 'teaching' are WORLDS apart? Not because of slight differences in one Gospel from another, but due to 'man-made' doctrines designed to please the hearts of those that wish NOT to accept what is offered.

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

Jesus said that they needed to know what was written in the Scriptures! They were to know the Scriptures.

Yes, but that doesn't mean to know chapter and verse and then turn around and focus on the minors while ignoring the majors. Jesus corrected the so-called "scribes", the modern day bible experts, who knew all of the Greek/Hebrew lexicons, the dating of the words used, and other such minute detail, but not understanding - or at least not practicing - what they read.

Thus, Jesus critized the hypocrisy of the Pharisees - who worried more about tithing MORE than mercy and love. The latter is the true message of Scriptures, one that the Pharisees got away from .

"TO KNOW" has interesting connotations in Jewish Scriptures - it goes to a personal level, rather than an intellectual one. I believe that is what Jesus means - we are to take the Scriptures and practice them as part of our lives.

There is a responsibility of the leader and the hearer.

Of course. The Spirit can speak through someone calling for reform. But reform is to be done without dissension and schism, WITHIN the confines of the Church. Some of the greatest saints were reformers! Maybe Luther would have been a great saint if he would have understood that. Paul makes that clear that schism is one of the worse things that can happen in the community - unity is a key factor of the Body of Christ. The Church has ALWAYS been undergoing reform. The problem is when men believe they must leave the community because "I know better". What sort of practice of humility and obedience is that? To me, it is just like the Pharisees, focusing on the minors and ignoring the majors.

And there is VERY LITTLE precedent in Scriptures for part of the community to break away from the accepted Church and start another community because "they just don't get it, but I do".

Regards