The Banned said:
AgLiving06 said:
The Banned said:
So you "just know" that a fallible group with no final authority knew what was scripture? That's it. You know they could be wrong. They just weren't, and the proof that they weren't is that we believe that they weren't?
Again, this is not an issue for Rome/EO, because it was the authority structure that was capable of determining what was and was not scripture. If the Bible is the ultimate authority, it needs to describe what does and doesn't belong for us to be sure. Tradition and Scripture are co-equal.
And let's not pivot to infallible interpretation when you can't explain how we can infallibly know that the books of the Bible belong in there. In my experience it is Protestants who are much more certain about interpreting scriptures than the Catholic Church. Genesis 1, for example.
ETA for Zobel below: the Catholics are arguing infallibility, not EO. You're having two conversations, so probably a little confusion there.
Just so I understand your position
Not even the OT was known until Rome came to be? When Jesus quoted the OT, He was merely waiting for Rome to confirm it for Him?
When the OT quote Jewish leaders who looked to the Law of Moses, they were just guessing?
Bold claim.
Again with the ridiculous "did Jesus need the Church" nonsense. You're the only one saying that and it's disingenuous. I'm not responding to posts like that anymore.
According to modern scholarship, Jewish canon was closed in 150-250 AD. So there has to be a body of people that were checking off on what stays and what goes well after the final book was written. Let's say it's only 10% of the OT. If I were Jewish, how could I know they picked they right ones? What if 2% is wrong? Or 2% more should have been included?
The Catholic Church determined their canon a couple hundred years later. How can we know they picked the right ones? Same issue
Luther made some changes over 1000 years later. How can we know he chose the right ones? Same issue.
His Protestant offspring completely removed the deuterocanonical books not long after. Were they right to do so? Or was Luther's middle ground correct? Or were the bishops over 1000 years before him correct?
You can say tradition is a helpful compliment or whatever, but unless that tradition has the AUTHORITY to determine what is and is not scripture, then I am free to question what material does or does not belong in there, just like Luther did. Why would I not be free to say that scripture is the ultimate authority but such and such passage doesn't belong in there? Recent scholarship suggests several Pauline epistles weren't written by Paul. Luther didn't know that, but we do. Why can't I toss them? Luther toyed with the canon. Now most Protestant denominations have gotten rid of the deuterocanonical books altogether. I know he never fully removed any, but it very clear he believed he had the authority to determine which scriptures were lesser versus greater, and the fruits of his work removed some altogether.
In your framework, we have no way of knowing who is right and who is wrong. You take scripture as some sort of brute fact, but scripture very clearly does not tell us which books do and do not belong. It's either a judgement call for each individual/church group OR that job belings to a divinely inspired Church (or Levitical lineage for Jews) that has the authority to do so. So my primary question still stands: by what authority do I know for certain that I can't remove the deuterocanonical books or even the book of James (as Luther so hotly detested)? If tradition is merely helpful in matters of interpretation of scripture, I see no reason to elevate it to some special status in determination of what scripture is. If tradition can tell us beyond a shadow of a doubt what belongs when the Bible itself does not, then you clearly have a second authority outside of the Bible. And if that authority has the ability to determine what is IN the Bible, how can it not authoritatively determine what the biblical texts mean?
I'm sorry, but your history is just wrong.
First you're avoiding my point, so I'll say it again.
My claim is this:
Premise: No infallible church was necessary for the Old Testament. This is not disputed by anybody.
Conclusion: No infallible church is necessary to determine the New Testament, and therefore there is not a necessity for an infallible Church.
This also haszero historical basis: "The Catholic Church determined their canon a couple hundred years later. How can we know they picked the right ones? Same issue"
It's not true nor has it ever been true.
I do enjoy the claim though because is smacks completely in the face of Zobel claims to show just how dysfunctional it all is. But the simple truth is Rome never determined a canon, and appeals to local councils (a modern invention) do not change that.
-------------------
What's also false is that Luther made changes. He stuck with the same exact canon. He denoted what aligned with the ancient church, but did not remove a single book. If you truly desire a good discussion, stopping with this incorrect line of reasoning would be a good start. The books of the Bible are infallible, not some pretend order (which actually widely varied within the Jewish groups as is).
------------------
Quote:
You can say tradition is a helpful compliment or whatever, but unless that tradition has the AUTHORITY to determine what is and is not scripture, then I am free to question what material does or does not belong in there, just like Luther did. Why would I not be free to say that scripture is the ultimate authority but such and such passage doesn't belong in there? Recent scholarship suggests several Pauline epistles weren't written by Paul. Luther didn't know that, but we do. Why can't I toss them? Luther toyed with the canon. Now most Protestant denominations have gotten rid of the deuterocanonical books altogether. I know he never fully removed any, but it very clear he believed he had the authority to determine which scriptures were lesser versus greater, and the fruits of his work removed some altogether.
This is bad reasoning.
First, you absolutely SHOULD question any and all traditions against Scripture. If it goes against Scripture, you should discard it, if it doesn't.
Second, your reasoning is flawed. Scripture as the only infallible source does not mean I can somehow just dismiss it when I don't like it. Even in Luther's case, while he initially had challenges with James, he came around to quoting it. That we struggle with Scripture, or what it teaches is a reflection of our fallen nature, not of Scripture itself.
Third, recent scholarship does not mean anything with regards to the epistles. Just as scholarship showing that the end of Mark may have been added later aren't a concern. We accept that God has given us is perfect and that while it may have taken us longer to accept something does not change that. Mans flaws don't mean anything as it relates to God's word.
Fourth, the bigger challenge is not the removal of the Apocryphal books, but instead Rome's elevation of them on par with the other books. That's the part that does not align with history. There's no historical basis in Jewish history to support those books as equal canon to the OT, so Luther's denoting them as useful books, even quoting them in sermons, does not mean they should be the basis of doctrine.
The biggest flaw in this is actually Rome's misuse of the word canon and not understanding that the ancient fathers, used canon in various ways...sometimes meaning the true canon of God, which was smaller, and others using canon in a wider sense to mean a multitude of books that may have been read in Church, but not all used in doctrinal discussion.