Trustworthiness of the Bible Canon?

[Byblos]

Bylbos,
No one is arguing the history of succession of the RCC, I am just stating that history doesn't change that the RCC of today is NOT the same as the catholic church of the 4th century and a prime example is that the RCC of today has doctrines that were not in place in the 4th century ( Papal infallibility being a prime example).
To same that the RCC of today is the same as the catholic church of the 4th century simply because they can trace their lineage back to them, doesn't seem to make any sense to me, sorry.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say.

Papal infallibility has always been with the church because infallibility was promised to the church, and not to a person (that it is the pillar of truth and that the gates of hell will never prevail against it). Infallibility is exercised by the Pope when speaking ex-cathedra as the head of the church but it is not by virtue of his person that his pronouncements are infallible, it is by virtue of the office he holds as guided by HS. If it weren't for infallibility (i.e. guidance of the Holy Spirit in matters of doctrine and morals) the church of the 4th century could not have possibly compiled the canon we today proclaim to be the inerrant Word of God. In other words, infallibility predated the canon.

[PaulSacramento]

Bylbos,
No one is arguing the history of succession of the RCC, I am just stating that history doesn't change that the RCC of today is NOT the same as the catholic church of the 4th century and a prime example is that the RCC of today has doctrines that were not in place in the 4th century ( Papal infallibility being a prime example).
To same that the RCC of today is the same as the catholic church of the 4th century simply because they can trace their lineage back to them, doesn't seem to make any sense to me, sorry.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say.

Papal infallibility has always been with the church because infallibility was promised to the church, and not to a person (that it is the pillar of truth and that the gates of hell will never prevail against it). Infallibility is exercised by the Pope when speaking ex-cathedra as the head of the church but it is not by virtue of his person that his pronouncements are infallible, it is by virtue of the office he holds as guided by HS. If it weren't for infallibility (i.e. guidance of the Holy Spirit in matters of doctrine and morals) the church of the 4th century could not have possibly compiled the canon we today proclaim to be the inerrant Word of God. In other words, infallibility predated the canon.

Hmmm, I think you may be putting more stock ( and faith) in man then you should, but I respect your opinion of course.

[Byblos]

Hmmm, I think you may be putting more stock ( and faith) in man then you should, but I respect your opinion of course.

You're right, I do put my stock in one man, Christ. And as I see it Christ established a visible church which, guided by the Holy Spirit, has given us his inerrant Word and holds interpretive authority over it.

[PaulSacramento]

Hmmm, I think you may be putting more stock ( and faith) in man then you should, but I respect your opinion of course.

You're right, I do put my stock in one man, Christ. And as I see it Christ established a visible church which, guided by the Holy Spirit, has given us his inerrant Word and holds interpretive authority over it.

Hmmm, maybe I misunderstand you here but are you saying that only the RCC has authority of interpreting scripture?

[Byblos]

Hmmm, I think you may be putting more stock ( and faith) in man then you should, but I respect your opinion of course.

You're right, I do put my stock in one man, Christ. And as I see it Christ established a visible church which, guided by the Holy Spirit, has given us his inerrant Word and holds interpretive authority over it.

Hmmm, maybe I misunderstand you here but are you saying that only the RCC has authority of interpreting scripture?

If she was infallibly entrusted with compiling the canon then it stands to reason she was also infallibly entrusted with interpreting it.

[PaulSacramento]

Hmmm, I think you may be putting more stock ( and faith) in man then you should, but I respect your opinion of course.

You're right, I do put my stock in one man, Christ. And as I see it Christ established a visible church which, guided by the Holy Spirit, has given us his inerrant Word and holds interpretive authority over it.

Hmmm, maybe I misunderstand you here but are you saying that only the RCC has authority of interpreting scripture?

If she was infallibly entrusted with compiling the canon then it stands to reason she was also infallibly entrusted with interpreting it.

Not sure if you answered my question my friend...
Let me put it this way:
Ever heard of Bruce Metzger?
Since he was not a RC, do you feel that he had any "authority" to interpret the bible?

[Byblos]

Not sure if you answered my question my friend...
Let me put it this way:
Ever heard of Bruce Metzger?
Since he was not a RC, do you feel that he had any "authority" to interpret the bible?

Anyone can read or interpret scripture any which way they want. But when there are disputes (and evidently there are many) I don't believe God would have left us without a final, infallible, interpretive authority. He did leave us such an authority but, dare I say, it is not Bruce Metzger.

[PaulSacramento]

Not sure if you answered my question my friend...
Let me put it this way:
Ever heard of Bruce Metzger?
Since he was not a RC, do you feel that he had any "authority" to interpret the bible?

Anyone can read or interpret scripture any which way they want. But when there are disputes (and evidently there are many) I don't believe God would have left us without a final, infallible, interpretive authority. He did leave us such an authority but, dare I say, it is not Bruce Metzger.

No, one man alone can't be an authority ( except for Christ of course).
But it seems to me that you are implying that ONLY the RCC can interpret scripture, is that what you are saying?
So Luther and all protestants had no authority to interpret it?
The bible should never have been translated other than by the RCC and even now only the "official RCC bible" is authoritative?
All comentaries and works of people other than the RCC in regards to scriptures can't be viewed as authoritative?

[Byblos]

Not sure if you answered my question my friend...
Let me put it this way:
Ever heard of Bruce Metzger?
Since he was not a RC, do you feel that he had any "authority" to interpret the bible?

Anyone can read or interpret scripture any which way they want. But when there are disputes (and evidently there are many) I don't believe God would have left us without a final, infallible, interpretive authority. He did leave us such an authority but, dare I say, it is not Bruce Metzger.

No, one man alone can't be an authority ( except for Christ of course).
But it seems to me that you are implying that ONLY the RCC can interpret scripture, is that what you are saying?
So Luther and all protestants had no authority to interpret it?
The bible should never have been translated other than by the RCC and even now only the "official RCC bible" is authoritative?
All comentaries and works of people other than the RCC in regards to scriptures can't be viewed as authoritative?

That's the claim of infallibility, Paul. Why are you so surprised? But you can take heart in the fact that the list of books in the canon are exactly what they're supposed to be, not due to popular opinion but to the source of infallibility, i.e. the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

[Philip]

Here are some interesting articles examining Roman Catholic Church authority and teachings:

Is the Roman Catholic Church the one true church founded by Christ, or an apostate church that has departed from the faith of the apostles? http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArch ... 2W1199.pdf

Sola Scriptura? http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArch ... 1W1199.pdf

Is the one true church Catholic? http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArch ... 1W0902.pdf

The Vatican's Interpretation of Scripture http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArch ... 1W1002.pdf

Past Popes Taught Destructive Heresies http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArch ... 2W0801.pdf

[bippy123]

I'll trust what Jesus said in scripture, I'll trust what the early church fathers were taught, starting with one of the earliest church fathers ignatious of Antioch who proclaimed that the church is catholic back in 107 ad and confirmed that the Eucharist is literally the body and blood of Christ. This is just one of many early church fathers and he was a student of the apostle John . If everyone wants to ignore this and ignore apostolic succession then by all means it's your right.

This is why I never could leave the church even though I did my searching in my late twenties. We have so many different interpretations and all claim to be guided by the holy spirit. Is this what scriptures claim and is this what Jesus said and is this what the early apostles passed down to the early church fathers?

[Philip]

Jude wrote, in verse 4 of his epistle, he wrote, “For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only sovereign and Lord.”

Jude identifies the apostates by certain characteristics. They are ungodly because they supplant God’s sovereign authority with an authority of their own. Apostates turn the grace of God into a commodity that can be bought, bartered or merited. They pervert the gospel of grace into a gospel of works. They deny the supremacy and sovereignty of Christ and give His divine attributes and titles to others. They deny the sufficiency of the word and work of Christ. It is these impostors who lead people away from “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.”

Do any of the above characteristics reveal the Catholic Church to be apostate? Look at the first article in the ones I previously linked, and then compare those characteristics with teachings from the new Catechism of the Catholic Church (also in the article).

[PaulSacramento]

I don't have any issues per say with the RCC, I was a RC.
I don't agree with the doctrine of infallibility of the pope or the "supreme" authority of the pope and that is why I am no longer a RC, but still a catholic.
I don't think that the RCC is in "apostasy" as some claim, it is a human institution and like any others, subject to the failings of Man.
I don't expect it to be perfect and place the fault of "lack of reform" on its followers since it is their responsibility to "keep the chruch in line".
We must all give thanks for the catholic church for being in the front lines of early christianity, if it wasn't for her...well...I am sure the HS was have found a way of course
That said there is no denying the catholic church of its dues in protecting The Faith as best it did.
And in regards to the TOPIC of this thread, there is no denying that the Catholic Church was responsible for the books and letters that we have now and that were regards as canon NOT because the Church said so, but because they WERE so BEFORE the church said so.

[Graceismine]

We all know that the Bible canon is the set of books regarded by Christians to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and thus true. The modern Bible canon was assembled by the early church fathers, who determined which books were inspired and which ones were not. Earlier forms of it were determined by the Jewish leaders of the given time periods.

My question is, how do we know that the canonnical books were inspired? What standard did the church fathers use for determining which ones were and which ones weren't? How can we know that the assemblers weren't politically motivated in their decisions? How can we know that the current Bible consists of the books that God wanted and not what the rulers of 200-1000AD wanted?

I've been unsure about the this question lately because looking at the timeline of the Bible, its development seems somewhat unstable, with leaders of different time periods constantly debating which books should be considered truth. Shouldn't it have been completely indisputable to these leaders as to which books were holy and which ones were frauds?

What say you?

I too am looking at the timeline of the Bible because you are. I don't see "constant debating"nor do I see "unstable". What I see is consistency in the main truths of Scripture that was handed down from the ancient versions before 400 AD until now.

In spite of the fact that I deplore the NIV I think that the salvation message has been carried through. Only by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit laid on the hearts of chosen men could the miracle of the Bible hold its integrity.

We can trust the Bible because Jesus said , "the gates of Hell would not prevail against His church". Matt 16:18. The Bible, is the word of God to the church and God will see that not on jot nor one tittle would pass away. Matt 5:18