A Religious Framework: Justifying the Christian Concept

Hi Jay,

The reliability of the Bible can only be based upon the reliability of the Catholic Church. Why? Because it was the Catholic Church that gave us the Bible.

It is not accurate to say that the "Catholic Church [...] gave us the Bible" since the majority of it came from the Hebrews. Furthermore, the Old Testament was clearly accepted as reliable by the Hebrews and by Christ Himself before the Christian Church came to be. Therefore one cannot say it is "based upon the reliability of the Catholic Church".

The Catholic Church in 395 A.D. bound together the authentic works of the apostles along with the Jewish Scriptures and created what we call the Bible. The Church’s authority conferred upon these books the label of “infallibility” – they are not only historically accurate, they are spiritually perfect.

Many, many Christian writers referred to NT and OT scripture as normative for doctrine prior to 395 AD. I do not know any significant early Christian writer that casts any doubt upon the infallible authority of scripture. Therefore it is puzzling to assert that the Church only later "conferred upon these books the label of 'infallibility'" when it was already widely accepted.

It should also be noted that the councils of the late 4th century did not attempt to establish an Old Testament canon. The exact status of deuterocanonical works remained unsure even within the Roman Church for many centuries, until the 16th century Council of Trent reacted to Luther.

The answer to these problems is to recast Scripture as Scripture describes itself: as grounded not in the authority of any ecclesiastical hierarchy but directly in God, who Himself "breathed" their contents. The Church did not write the Bible, it is not the source of the Bible, and it did not create the Bible as you assert. I find CCC106 more accurate in its presentation: "God is the author of Sacred Scripture." The church does not give the Bible its authority but "accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments". The Church does not supply strength to Scripture, it is in fact the reverse: the church nourished and strengthened by scripture as the Word of God (see CCC104).

In Him, Kaff

Kaff:

The Church is nothing more than those faithful who diligently copy what the Father has written. Sure, the Father is the origin of all things. But the Bible makes plain that it has pleased Him to include us in what is done.

Also, the Church--the body of orthodox believers--has more power than you give it credit for. As Christ told Peter, "What you bind is bound, and what you loose is loosed." He doesn't say, "Unless heaven vetoes your decision." Also, the inclusion of the church elders into the decision making process is stated plainly by James when he says, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit *and to us...*." Would you really take James to task for distracting us from the Holy Spirit? If God's opinion alone is all that matters, what does it matter if anything seems good to the Apostles? Surely that's just egotism!

Tobias

Hi Tobias,

You are absolutely right, the Church is no more and no less than the assembly of people who accept the word of God. And yes, God lays squarely upon our shoulders the responsibility and authority to preach His word. We agree 100% there.

As for the decisions rendered by the early church, these were plainly not on doctrinal matters but regarded daily practice. It is good and acceptable to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit in such matters. I hope we would agree that such communal decisions supply a very different scope of leadership than that provided by the content of scripture.

And of course Christ did tell the apostles that what they bind is bound and what they loose is loosed. But that does not mean the Church is permitted to ignore, reverse, or modify what is found in Scripture. We must not mistake the fact that it is the Word of God not the Word of the Church. Evangelical Christians like myself believe that God’s word does not derive its authority from the Church, a belief which is apparently shared with the authors of the CCC which states, “because [the scriptures] are inspired [by God], they truly are the Word of God” (CCC135). Scripture is not assured by the Church but by God Himself, in CCC136: by inspiring the authors God “gives assurance that their writings teach without error His saving truth.” In the whole of Article 3 Section I, the Church “exhorts”, “venerates”, “accepts”, “affirms”, “researches”, and “interprets”, but never “writes” or “creates” or even “assures”.

Why then do so many Catholic apologists insist on the misleading assertion, "The Church wrote the Bible" (which is meant to imply, I suppose, that "the Roman Catholic hierarchy wrote the Bible") when there is clearly no sense in which this statement is justifiable? Perhaps the problem is that the epistemology of many Catholic apologists is set backwards. In their zeal to promote a sola ecclesia viewpoint, they dare suggest the Church authors the very Word of God (!) when in fact the actual Roman Catholic teaching is that the Church simply bears witness to it. I think this does an injustice to the Roman Catholic position and creates division where there should be unity with others who wish to accept the full teachings of the Word of God.

In Him, Kaff

Kaff,
You say:
"Why then do so many Catholic apologists insist on the misleading assertion, "The Church wrote the Bible" (which is meant to imply, I suppose, that "the Roman Catholic hierarchy wrote the Bible") when there is clearly no sense in which this statement is justifiable?"

The answer is simple from a Catholic apologist point of view who, as you say, adheres to "sola ecclesia." The Catholic Church (i.e. the Church in union with the apostles and Peter and their successors) is THE Church Christ founded and they DID put to parchment the inspired Word of God. So this is an assertion that is clearly justifiable.
In Truth,
Matthew

Hi Matthew,

Thanks, I kinda already figured that Peter wrote the epistles that bear his name. But that doesn't change the point. Peter is not "the Church".

Let's review.

Scripture says that holy men were moved upon by the Spirit to produce scripture. Scripture does not say the Church produced scripture.

The CCC says that God authored scripture. The CCC does not say the Church produced scripture.

But Catholic Apologists say the Church wrote the Bible. Even though the Old Testament obviously wasn't. Even though the CCC doesn't assert this. Even though Scripture itself says nothing of the sort. So why do they say this? I have yet to encounter a better theory then that they are overreacting to sola scriptura with a brand of sola ecclesia that is completely untenable. If you have a better explanation I'm all ears, Matthew.

I'm afraid I'm not following you, Kaff. I understand that the Church is not the same thing as God. However, I don't see the necessary contradiction, that you see, in saying that the Bible is the Word of God and that the Church wrote the Bible. God wrote the Bible through the Church--that is, the primary elders of the Church who gave their blessing (by the power of God) to other Christians to lead. This power to bless and the hierarchy that sprang up from it, immediately, isn't in question, or shouldn't be, because most of the earliest Church histories and epistles--say, the letters of St. Ignatius and the Martyrdom of Polycarp--testify to the fact that the Apostles established a very clear hierarchy who were to have authority over the laity. Our earliest documents regarding the persecutions, the first documented feast of Easter in Jerusalem, etc., testify again and again that God was active in teaching the truth through a hierarchy that had fully opened itself up to that truth. (Polycarp was a bishop, and he himself knew Paul, or was it John?.) God didn't just "write the Bible."

The Bible is the Word of God: sure. No question. But God Himself did not preach the Gospel to us without Himself becoming a man. That Man organized a group of men who, after He was gone, organized themselves into a hierarchy of bishops, within the first generation of Christians. That hierarchy of men, inspired by the Holy Spirit or so they tell us (take it up with every theologian of the first three centuries if you disagree), organized themselves into a prayerful and miracle-working authority on just what God wanted to say to us. It was out of this authority (not superseding, but submissive to and therefore accurate regarding God) that the Bible was written. It didn't get written in spite of, in contradiction to, or in the ignorance of this organized authority sanctified and certified--again, so the earliest documents tell us--by God and otherwise known as the Church.

I could understand if you wanted to make a point regarding the hierarchical order of which comes first: God or the Church. But as far as I understand you, you're not. You're saying that the Church is more or less unimportant as regards how the Bible was written, which amounts to saying that the way God decides to do what is done is unimportant; all that matters is what is done. With which I have to argue: in God there is no incongruity between method and goal. His very method is a goal; His goal is a particular method which requires imitation on our part. God authorizes us--nay, commands us--to imitate His authority.

I think that the way He decided to have the Bible written--the way He does anything and who He chooses to do it--is indicative of who He is, and therefore should be cherished as such. I just don't see how it is possible to maintain a preference for God that does not itself include God's own preferences. God made trees, for instance. Let the man who says, "I don't want trees, I want God," be very clear about what he is saying.

To put this another way, it is not the trees or the Church that is important per se, but only by derivation from what they get from God. But let us also hasten to add that just because something is unimportant or worthless outside of God does not mean that they are therefore worthless: "trees per se" and "the Church per se" are illusions, because they have no reality outside of God. There are only "trees created by God" and "the Church as created by God." To put it yet another way, you are emphasizing the transcendent aspect of God over and against His own immanent aspect. Insofar as God is transcendent, everything else is dust and ashes and worth nothing. But insofar as He is immanent, there is nothing that is not God manifesting Himself. You cannot say the one without also saying the other. You will notice, if you look around, that every heresy is an attempt to embrace one of the two aspects of God over and against the other.

Tobias

Hey, Jay. I like the list. If I could make a small technical addition, not a correction, to number 6: while God is wholly in all of creation, by a mysterious paradox He is also wholly in each thing in creation without being contained (contra pantheism and panentheism) and without annihilating each thing (contra gnosticism). I suggest this addition because, God being "wholly in all creation" can be mistaken by itself to mean that the different parts of creation are "parts" of God, who has no parts.

Tobias

Kaff,
I tire of your "swiss cheese" arguments that are at times condescending and not helpful in our discussions. You asked a question and I gave a straight-forward answer. Like in other threads, I've noticed that when you get frustrated with the posters here you tend to get defensive or decide to shut down altogether. Again, you asked and I answered, but you would rather make an off handed comment than doesn't reflect back to me what I actually said. Specifically you said:

"Thanks, I kinda already figured that Peter wrote the epistles that bear his name. But that doesn't change the point. Peter is not "the Church".

However, I said, the Catholic Church is made up of the Church IN UNION WITH THE APOSTLES, PETER, AND THEIR SUCCESSORS--not just Peter. Instead of reflecting on my brief and to the point answer you would rather split hairs and become defensive. I have come to think that you just don't like what you hear and it strikes a nerve in you. Otherwise I don't understand your terse responses. Lastly, Jay's post is not about "who wrote the Bible," it is much more than that and I think that taking this post in a different direction is disrespectful to Jay's time and effort he put into it. In close Kaff, Catholic apologists CAN make the argument that the Bible is a Catholic book, written by Catholics from the mouth of God. The writers were INSPRIRED by God, but at the same time the writers themselves belonged to THE ONE CHURCH built by Christ himself. It is therefore a logical deduction that if there was only one Church, which was/is Catholic then the inspired writers WERE Catholics.
Kaff, I apologize if I come across a little raw in this post. I thought that I gave a clear, concise answer in my previous post and that would be the end of it.
In Truth,
Matthew

Hi Tobias,

Thanks for your kind response. For what it’s worth, I agree with a great deal of what you wrote. We agree that Christ gave authority to the apostles to deliver His teachings to the Church. We agree that God frequently uses men to accomplish His purposes—even to the point of putting on human flesh to perform the work of atonement. We even agree that just because God immanently "uses" something does not mean that something is worthless—in fact, it is God's use of that something that gives it real value.

However, none of this really has to do with my objection to the phrase "The Church wrote the Bible". If we merely mean to say, "The Apostles wrote the New Testament" then I would have no objection. But in Jay's context, the very authority of Scripture comes merely as a corollary to the authority of the Church; therefore we should thank the Church for producing scripture as its gift to us. This is makes for a very tidy sola ecclesia perspective but it is backwards from reality. God's Word is not a gift given by the Church to itself. It is a gift God entrusts to the Church as a tool to bring salvation to the world and to edify the body of Christ.

I have presented three specific objections to the phrase. Since it seems nobody has interacted directly with my objections yet, I will restate them for clarity.

The Witness of History. The Old Testament did not proceed from the Church. It was already written and accepted as canonical by the Hebrews prior to the Advent. Can you show me how the Roman Catholic Church wrote the Old Testament? If not, you cannot assert that "The Church Wrote the Bible". The very most you could say is "The Church Wrote the New Testament".

The Witness of Scripture. Scripture never refers to itself as a product of the church, but specifically as a product of the Holy Spirit directly inspiring certain men (meaning prophets and apostles). Scripture never claims that the Word of God is an outgrowth of the Church’s authority or activity. It rather states quite plainly that written prophecy is the direct result of God’s sovereign act of inspiration, as "men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:21). Again we see, scripture comes "from God" not "from the church".

The Witness of the Roman Church. The Roman Catholic Catechism of the Church, which I suppose my Roman Catholic brothers here are to consider as normative, never claims that the Church wrote the Bible, or even that the authority of the Church is what makes the Bible what it is, but correctly states that the Church simply accepts it and is nourished by it. One cannot eat of one's own flesh for nourishment, at least, not for very long. Not only this, but CCC86 states that the teaching authority of the Catholic Church (the Magisterium) "is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant." Does the master receive his authority from the servant? Of course not. Similarly, no church can say that its authority created what it now claims to serve.

Tobias, you said that "God didn't just 'write the Bible.'" But according to your own Catechism, in fact He did:

105. God is the author of Sacred Scripture. [...] 106. God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. [...] 107. The inspired books teach the truth.

As much as sola ecclesia apologists would like to inject the "authority of the Roman Catholic Church" into the production of Holy Scripture, It. Is. Just. Not. There.

In Him, Kaff

Hi Matthew,

I'm sorry you don't like my posts. You are of course not obligated to respond to any of them, but I thank you that you make the attempt.

My response, though terse, struck at a certain issue: "Peter" and "the Church" are in union but they are not equivalent entities. Let me illustrate by asking which statement makes more sense: "Peter wrote the epistle we call 1 Peter" or "The universal church wrote the epistle we call 1 Peter"? I think it is obvious that the first statement is the most clear and logical, while the second statement is downright confusing.

It was not my intention to disrespect Jay's effort, but merely to draw attention to an important element within it that I believe is not true to the historical roots of the Christian faith. If it is Jay is going to argue for the reasonability of the Christian framework he is not going to help his case by arguing, for example, that the Roman Catholic Church authored the book of Isaiah. If my criticism is valid, perhaps Jay will make use of it to improve his future arguments; if it is invalid I can simply be discounted or ignored with Jay proven victorious. In either case Jay should suffer no damage or disrespect, indeed, he is strengthened.

In Him, Kaff

Yo, Kaff.

“If we merely mean to say, "The Apostles wrote the New Testament" then I would have no objection. But in Jay's context, the very authority of Scripture comes merely as a corollary to the authority of the Church; therefore we should thank the Church for producing scripture as its gift to us. This is makes for a very tidy sola ecclesia perspective but it is backwards from reality. God's Word is not a gift given by the Church to itself. It is a gift God entrusts to the Church as a tool to bring salvation to the world and to edify the body of Christ.”

I’m sorry, Kaff. I’m not trying to be stubborn. But I don’t at all see how these two are necessarily opposed. God’s Word is a gift given to the Church which the Church then gives to the world. I don’t remember anybody saying that the Church gave the Scriptures to “itself.” But even still, if your argument were carried on ad infinitum it would result in equal absurdities. When your mom tells you she got you a nice Christmas present, you can correct her and say, “On the contrary! God got that present for me and you are merely an earthen vessel for God to carry out his will! Do not *at all* claim that the present originates with you!”

“The Witness of History. The Old Testament did not proceed from the Church. It was already written and accepted as canonical by the Hebrews prior to the Advent. Can you show me how the Roman Catholic Church wrote the Old Testament? If not, you cannot assert that "The Church Wrote the Bible". The very most you could say is "The Church Wrote the New Testament".”

I think you’re kind of pouncing on an accident of language, here, Kaff. I think it’s safe to assume that those folks who claim the Church wrote the Bible were talking about the New Testament; they were simply relying on common sense in their listeners.

“The Witness of Scripture. Scripture never refers to itself as a product of the church, but specifically as a product of the Holy Spirit directly inspiring certain men (meaning prophets and apostles). Scripture never claims that the Word of God is an outgrowth of the Church’s authority or activity. It rather states quite plainly that written prophecy is the direct result of God’s sovereign act of inspiration, as "men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:21). Again we see, scripture comes "from God" not "from the church".”

In point of fact, Kaff, Scripture almost never refers to itself at all. We could carry solo scriptura to its logical conclusions and state that, because the Bible is not mentioned in the Bible, therefore the Bible must not exist. Also, you call this section “the witness of scripture.” That implies a positive suggestion that Scripture somehow or other bears witness to the fact that the Scriptures have no relative origin in the Church, under the absolute origin of God. There are two points to make: first, you actually go on to make the negative point that Scripture doesn’t mention it, therefore it must not be true. This is odd, considering the fact that John says that the Bible is but a fraction of what Christ did and taught. Also, remember Lao Tsu: “Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.” You are taking Scripture’s silence on its own origins as Scripture’s way of saying what it’s origins weren’t. That would be like me not saying anything about my parents, and only talking about God, and you saying, “See, he claims he doesn’t have any parent but God.” Secondly, nobody so far has tried at all to supersede God with the Church. We are all conceding, I think, that God is the ultimate author, not just of the Scriptures, but of everything. What we are not conceding, because it goes against common sense, is that nothing in this world can claim a relative origination with regard to anything else. To say that the Church wrote the Scriptures is in perfect keeping with the idea that God inspired the Church to them. If you’re right about the Scriptures, we have to insist that parents cannot call themselves the parents of their own children, because ultimately only God is the only real parent of all creation. God is the one who really came up with us; he merely used our “parents” to get us into this world.” This objection can be stated with regard to any claims of possession, ownership, responsibility, of any kind.

“The Witness of the Roman Church. The Roman Catholic Catechism of the Church, which I suppose my Roman Catholic brothers here are to consider as normative, never claims that the Church wrote the Bible, or even that the authority of the Church is what makes the Bible what it is, but correctly states that the Church simply accepts it and is nourished by it. One cannot eat of one's own flesh for nourishment, at least, not for very long. Not only this, but CCC86 states that the teaching authority of the Catholic Church (the Magisterium) "is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant." Does the master receive his authority from the servant? Of course not. Similarly, no church can say that its authority created what it now claims to serve.”

Again, neither does the Catechism claim to have all the answers. It is not meant to be exhaustive, but informative. The fact that it doesn’t mention yo-yos doesn’t mean that it is opposed to them. It is to be used as a companion to the many other documents of the Church, a tremendous amount of which, prior to there even being a “Roman” Church at the center of Western Christendom, spoke of the Scriptures having been written by the Church.

“Tobias, you said that "God didn't just 'write the Bible.'" But according to your own Catechism, in fact He did:
105. God is the author of Sacred Scripture. [...] 106. God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. [...] 107. The inspired books teach the truth.”

I know (sigh) that God wrote the Bible. But perhaps I am being to subtle for my own good. Allow me to make my point more plain: God didn’t just ‘write the Bible’ in the same way that men write things. It is absurd to say that God “wrote the Bible” and just leave it at that. The inevitable question is, “How did he write the Bible?” To which, if we are true to the history that the Holy Spirit and the Apostles had together, we must answer: “By getting men, who are inspired by God, to write it for him.” When we investigate into the nature of these men, lo and behold, it turns out that every single one of them (according to the ancient traditions such as the Synaxarion and earliest Church documents) was a hierarch in a clearly organized body of God-inspired authority.

Suffice it to say that there isn’t a single thing that God does for us that he doesn’t include us in on the enactment of it (I dare you to name even one). There isn’t a single act on his part for us that he doesn’t include us in, even if we are ignorant, stupid, shy, or just plain hateful or inept (Moses, Jonah, Peter, etc.).

“As much as sola ecclesia apologists would like to inject the "authority of the Roman Catholic Church" into the production of Holy Scripture, It. Is. Just. Not. There.”

The Bible was written by hierarchs in a clearly organized body of authority that was inspired by God to write those books. If this is not how the Bible was written, you will need to explain how it was written by God without him having the Church write it for him. Who, exactly, did write it for him? Again, universally God originates things only by allowing us to have some part in their origins. He "couldn't" even be born without a human being's submission to his desire to be born. It's absurd to think that he coerced Mary into the idea. Even at the beginning of creation, Christ was slain at the foundation of the world: our humanity was there, in the slain Christ, even at the beginning.

One quick note about how you’re reading the lack of mention in the Scriptures: it is far easier and more convincing to say that something *is* there than it is to say that something *isn’t* there. For instance, if I say there is a spider in the room, all I have to do is show you where I know the spider is. If, however, I say that there is *no* spider in the room, we have to tear the room apart to know whether what I’m speaking is true, and even then we may have reservations as whether we have looked into every cranny. Positive statements are not only easier to prove, they are also more convincing than negative statements. In short: find a place in the Bible where it says that the Church is not to be spoken of as being in any way responsible for the Scriptures, and you will have a relatively solid argument on your side. (As though a mother were in no way responsible for giving birth to a child who was ultimately born of God.) But a mere lack of saying anything on the subject, in the Scriptures, is not tantamount to saying anything against the subject.

Tobias

Yo Matthew and Tob

What don't you understand about Kaff. I'm gonna side with Kaff logic as usual in this one...as I always do :)...

Lets look at some Kaffisms so far. God breathed the bible NOT the church...Peter wrote Peter. And Peter is NOT the Church...by Kaffism Peter must be God.

Lets take it a bit further... the US Constitution was written by people like Hancock...historians actually claim it to be a distinctly American document...HA! the United States did not write it HA!therefore it cannot be linked to the US! Even if all the people wrote it, Kaff and I would argue that the actual US are a federation of land and land can't write...HA! so there! It is a distictly Madison Adams Hancock document if you said that we would agree with you...

The Witness of History:

"The Old Testament was accepted as canonical by the Hebrews before the Advent." Hmmm yet we see by this info

http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=28

that it was the Septuagint that was written in 250 BC as used by the Catholics. Protestants in their fervor to dispatch Purgatory (unsuccessfully) they have replaced the Septuagint in favor of the Palestinian canon of 100AD! And ignore Jewish prayers for the dead (painted on walls as reminders that it was commonly accepted) many dating back to the 1st century as they take their tours of catacoms on their European vacations... Pope Clement whose writings were considered by many of the fathers to be included in canon notes specifically that it was the Septuagint that is used to preach by 1st century Christians (the Palestinian Canon was not completed at the time Clement was in the seat) 300 yrs and form the Palestian Canon? Here is only 1 example why...from the book of Wisdom (of Solomon):

2:12 Therefore let us lie in wait for the righteous; because he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to our doings: he upbraideth us with our offending the law, and objecteth to our infamy the transgressings of our education.

2:13 He professeth to have the knowledge of God: and he calleth himself the child of the Lord.

2:14 He was made to reprove our thoughts.

2:15 He is grievous unto us even to behold: for his life is not like other men’s, his ways are of another fashion.

2:16 We are esteemed of him as counterfeits: he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: he pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed, and maketh his boast that God is his father.

2:17 Let us see if his words be true: and let us prove what shall happen in the end of him.

2:18 For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies.

2:19 Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meekness, and prove his patience.

2:20 Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own saying he shall be respected.

2:21 Such things they did imagine, and were deceived: for their own wickedness hath blinded them.

2:22 As for the mysteries of God, they kn ew them not: neither hoped they for the wages of righteousness, nor discerned a reward for blameless souls.

2:23 For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.

The witness of scripture...Indeed Kaff we agree with what you say here...what you don't address is the historical fact that the book of Thomas or Mary Magdalene had to be discarded...who determined the authenticity of scripture? who decided what was determined divinely inspired? Where is the table of contents? The Church period end of story is the answer to the above. see a former protestant pastors view here:

http://catholicity.elcore.net/GrahamOnNewTestamentCanon.html

In Love

when we were one

Well met, Tobias. But to return your kindness, I have further response for you.

Tobias: God’s Word is a gift given to the Church which the Church then gives to the world. I don’t remember anybody saying that the Church gave the Scriptures to “itself.”

Actually if we insist that "the Church wrote/produced/created/authorized the Bible" and we also accept that the Bible is a gift the church receives that is at least in part for the church, then we are pressed into the conclusion that the Church somehow gave a gift to itself. You could dismiss this as semantic wordplay but I assert the wordplay began with the original assertion. I'm merely following it to its necessary conclusions.

Tobias: When your mom tells you she got you a nice Christmas present, you can correct her and say, “On the contrary! God got that present for me and you are merely an earthen vessel for God to carry out his will! Do not *at all* claim that the present originates with you!”

That's a great analogy, but you have failed to apply it fully. When Mom gives me a nice pair of socks it is well-understood that she selected the socks from a merchant, purchased them, wrapped them, and presented them to me. In a similar way the universal Church can take pride in its unique role of transmitting God's Word to me. But if Mom were to assert that she raised the sheep, hand-spun the wool, knitted the socks, and affixed the "Calvin Klein" label, I would have reason to doubt her. It's the same when someone claims that the universal church did not just transmit the Bible but in fact authored, created, or produced it. It's a different claim, and before we accept the statement as trustworthy we must look at all the data points.

Tobias: I think it’s safe to assume that those folks who claim the Church wrote the Bible were talking about the New Testament; they were simply relying on common sense in their listeners.

So, you're saying that it's basically an inaccurate statement, but that's OK because people ought to be able to mentally correct it? And remember, Jay's post is about "talking to non-Christians". If we wish to communicate clearly, it would help to say what we actually mean.

Tobias: In point of fact, Kaff, Scripture almost never refers to itself at all.

With all due respect, Tobias, you have got to be kidding me. Scripture is replete with self-referential material, including quotations of itself, interpretations of itself, praise of itself as God's Word. Not only this, but explicit statements about its own character and purpose are easily found, having been made by practically every major character in the New Testament, including Peter (2 Peter 1:21, on the authority of scripture), Paul (2 Tim 3:16, on the sufficiency of scripture), John (John 20:31, on the purpose of scripture), Luke (Acts 17:11, on the value of the study of scripture), and even Christ Himself (John 10:35, on the infallibility of scripture).

Tobias: To say that the Church wrote the Scriptures is in perfect keeping with the idea that God inspired the Church to [write] them. If you’re right about the Scriptures, we have to insist that parents cannot call themselves the parents of their own children, because ultimately only God is the only real parent of all creation.

Tobias, Tobias, I believe, I really do believe, that God's authority can be worked out through man. You are reminding me of the possibility that God's authority can be exercised through the Church, and of course it can. But the two are still not completely equivalent.

Really, your point here is about what we mean by the term "author". The term "authorship" denotes the exercise of creative power to produce a written work. God is the source of all things, but that does not mean we should attribute authorship of, say, The DaVinci Code to God. When we say Dan Brown "authored" a book we mean to say that it was his creative process that produced it. But for Holy Scripture the claim is fundamentally different; the human writers operated under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and therefore it is more appropriate to say God "authored" scripture, that the whole creative process was guided and protected in a mysterious way by the Spirit of God. So, it is correct, but not complete, to say "Paul authored the epistle to the Ephesus" because it was not Paul's sole creative process at work.

But then, when we shift to say "The universal church authored", the statement becomes even less complete, and more misleading. Because in any other circumstance, when we refer to collective authorship of a work, we are referring primarily to the authority of the organization as that which underpins the work. And so the question is, is it more correct to say that the Word of God proceeds directly from the authority of God, or from the more specific and limited authority God grants to the Church? From my perspective, the former statement is more true to scripture and even what we find in the Roman Catechism.

Tobias: Again, neither does the Catechism claim to have all the answers. It is not meant to be exhaustive, but informative.

And I gladly concede we do not have statements in either scripture or in the Roman catechism that explicitly state, "The Church did absolutely did not write the Bible". Yet, it is still fair game to discuss whether the novel assertion that "The Church wrote the Bible" is accurate, or is rather false or misleading in its implications. My argument is not just from silence, but that the implications of the statement do not align with what is evident from history, scripture, logic, or the witness of the universal church.

Tobias: It is to be used as a companion to the many other documents of the Church, a tremendous amount of which, prior to there even being a “Roman” Church at the center of Western Christendom, spoke of the Scriptures having been written by the Church.

If that is true may I ask you to produce such a document?

Tobias: Suffice it to say that there isn’t a single thing that God does for us that he doesn’t include us in on the enactment of it (I dare you to name even one).

This is a bit off-topic, but I advise that you take care in making such sweeping statements. I think it is safer to say that God often includes us but to insist He always does comes perilously close to the idea that it is necessary that He do so, which infringes on His sovereignty. To answer your dare more directly, God's predestination of us as believers (Eph 1:5) to be called out by a wisdom from "before the ages" (1 Cor 2:7) must have been done without our inclusion, given the fact that we were not present.

Tobias: In short: find a place in the Bible where it says that the Church is not to be spoken of as being in any way responsible for the Scriptures, and you will have a relatively solid argument on your side.

Here is a recap of the statement you endeavor to defend:

"The Church [and by this we do not mean 'the church' as a whole, but only certain leaders of the early church] Wrote [and by this we do not mean 'wrote', as in, 'one day the entire church decided it was going to create some scripture' but rather 'individuals operated under the direct supervision and inspiration of the Spirit of God' so much so that it is in fact more accurate to say 'God wrote'] the Bible [and by this we do not mean 'the Bible' but just the last 20% or so]".

The problem is not that the statement "The Church Wrote the Bible" has absolutely no sense in which it could be considered true. It's just that to make it a true statement we have to redefine each and every word as it is normally understood and used. (Well, except the word "the", we can let that one lie.) So, once you burrow down to the actual truth it so poorly represents, no, I don't think you will find that truth denied in scripture.

Kindest regards, Kaff

Kaff,
All I can say is that it is not that I don't like your posts it is more of the tone in which they are written at times. Instead of staying the course of the argument you change it, avoid it, or shut down altogether. I give you credit for coming on the site, but my brother the spirit of contempt must go.

First, I think that Tobias did a nice job explaining that we are talking about the New Testament here as far as writing goes and that the Church is NOT superior to the Word of God-either in its written or oral form (enough said). As for the Peter/Church argument, yes the first response above does make more sense as you've written it, but that does not damage my deduction I made in the previous post. Simply, there was only ONE Church founded by Christ, Peter was given the "keys to the kingdom," bishops were appointed with Apostolic authority to carry the Church forward. Since there was only one Church how could the New Testament writers be anything but Catholic (granted primitive). In essence, the Bible that you now own is a gift from the Catholic Church through the inspiration of God and authoritatively defined--both Old and New Testaments. As to your version of history regarding the orgins of Christianity, that is your opinion, and as far as authority to determine the Canon goes, well you can debate that with God. Martin Luther himself had to admit this in his "Commentary On St. John:

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that WE HAVE RECEIVED IT FROM THEM, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all."

There you have it...the "hero" of the Reformation conceding this point. I don't know what else there is to say about this since this is THE guy who you would have thought would never admitted such a thing...but he did. The reason that he did is because it is historically true. Luther knew it just as Catholics know it today. Kaff why do you try to keep climbing up a greasy pole?? It escapes me why you don't acquiesce on this point and move on. You don't lose any credibility by admitting this. However, you do when you try to make up history as you see fit.
In Truth,
Matthew

Jay,

Kreeft and Tacelli's list can ONLY prove that we CAN know all those things about God. It presupposes a particular paradigm, worldview, and taxonomy...and is, like fundamentalisms, ultimately circular and INTRAtextual.

In other words, the knowledge they say we can have is knowledge that would only be available to folks who embrace their paradigm, and come to their conclusions!

Johanen,
I disagree. Kreeft and Tacelli's list explains what must be true about God. If any of their things are not true (this goes back to the proofs of God's existence), then there is something greater than God and He thus no longer is god.

Does that make sense?

God bless,
Jay

Hi Matthew,

In any discussion where people have different points of view there is a risk of undue contention. If I have written contentiously please accept my apology.

Of course Luther is right that Christians within the Roman hierarchy have played an important role in preserving the text of Scripture over the ages (Of course I can’t say I have studied how exclusive this role is, that would require a review of manuscript sources which we currently use.) But here we are talking about transmission which is a completely different notion than Jay's claim that the authorship and authority of Scripture springs primarily from the Church, which I contest. If you want to go to Luther on this topic, here is what he had to say, from his commentary on Galatians 1:9 (in which the Apostle Paul famously claims “if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!”):

In spite of this emphatic denunciation, so many accept the pope as the supreme judge of the Scriptures. “The Church,” they say, “chose only four gospels. The Church might have chosen more. Ergo the Church is above the Gospel.” With equal force one might argue: “I approve the Scriptures. Ergo I am above the Scriptures. John the Baptist confessed Christ. Hence he is above Christ.” Paul subordinates himself, all preachers, all the angels of heaven, everybody to the Sacred Scriptures. We are not the masters, judges, or arbiters, but witnesses, disciples, and confessors of the Scriptures, whether we be pope, Luther, Augustine, Paul, or an angel from heaven.

Couldn’t have said it better.

In Him, Kaff

Hi Kaff,

Luther subordinated himself to scripture only to the extent that it accorded with his theological novelties:

"Therefore St James' epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it."
(Luther's Works 35, 362)

"The epistle of James gives us much trouble, for the Papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest...Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did."
(Luther's Works 34, 317)

"We should throw the epistle of James out of this school [i.e. Wittenburg], for it doesn't amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, 'Wait a moment! I'll oppose them and urge works alone.' This he did."
(Luther's Works 54, 424)

Difficult to reconcile these with the (illogical) paragraph above.

“Actually if we insist that "the Church wrote/produced/created/authorized the Bible" and we also accept that the Bible is a gift the church receives that is at least in part for the church, then we are pressed into the conclusion that the Church somehow gave a gift to itself. “

But it’s a conclusion at the end of a rabbit trail. It may be one of the things that we can deduce from what’s been said, but it’s a deduction largely on the periphery of the topic at hand. If I take you correctly, you are suggesting that it is the intention of those arguing with you that this self-reference be snuck in somehow. Perhaps, but not likely, and if so, to what purpose?

“That's a great analogy, but you have failed to apply it fully. When Mom gives me a nice pair of socks it is well-understood that she selected the socks from a merchant, purchased them, wrapped them, and presented them to me. In a similar way the universal Church can take pride in its unique role of transmitting God's Word to me. But if Mom were to assert that she raised the sheep, hand-spun the wool, knitted the socks, and affixed the "Calvin Klein" label, I would have reason to doubt her. It's the same when someone claims that the universal church did not just transmit the Bible but in fact authored, created, or produced it. It's a different claim, and before we accept the statement as trustworthy we must look at all the data points.”

You’re insisting on defining “authorship” as though it were an unequivocal term, which it isn’t, and you’re insisting, against what those who hold that the Church wrote the Bible, that those who believe this treat the Church as the *primary* source of the Scriptures, which is absurd. I honestly don’t know of anybody who holds the viewpoint you’re arguing against. My point in this analogy was that we all claim some sort of “authorship” of our actions, our responsibilities, and our gifts—all of which are derived from God, so that we may claim them as derived from God. If *you* wish to insist, willy-nilly, that those who believe the Church existed before the Gospels, and that the Gospels have a relative origin in the Church (as well as an absolute and primary origin in God)—that such believers are doing so in the hopes of superseding God with the Church, you are free to do so. But this is in direct contradiction to the fact that they have (here and throughout history) taken great pains to explain to you and people like yourself that their thinking highly (and, truth be told, faithfully with regard to her history in the spiritual economia) of the Church does not confuse them as to the primacy of God. Do we really think so highly of the Church, because we do not think that it is nothing more than a telephone wire from heaven to earth?

To restate the claim, in linear fashion:
1) The Church wrote (by derivation from God) and was the chosen caretaker of the Gospels. This caretaking had a great deal more to do than simply hand-copying the Bible through the ages. More on this in 4).
2) It is not enough to say that the Church was merely a transmitter; there is no such thing as mere “transmission,” the way you are using the word, because
3) God doesn’t simply ask anybody to transmit something without somehow also drawing the transmitter up into a state or office of holiness (literally translated as “set apart” or “elevated”) grossly out of keeping with a mere clerk or proof-copier. Remember the parable of the talents: he who merely transmits is cast into where there is darkness and gnashing of teeth.
4) Those who “transmit” God or one of his gifts faithfully do so only by first being “lifted up” or enlightened by those gifts. Your attenuated view of the Church as an errand boy is not so much an offense to the Church as it is an ignorance of how God has proven himself to act in every occasion. We claim that the authors of the Bible—if you will allow such a designation—understood, and therefore were capable of adequately (or as adequately as possible) handling what was given to them to give to others. This adequate handling gave them authority. Only he who has truly seen can say what there is to see, and he who has seen well enough to transmit deserves a chair at the head of the table, so to speak. As far as I can tell, you, on the contrary, believe that faithful “transmission” is really, to the point, nothing more than regurgitation. I’m sorry, but I find it completely impossible to wrap my mind around this way of thinking. You force me to put it more delicately than is my wont, but you make God’s will sound brutal in its cold disregard of the human hands that have endeavored so painfully to preserve it in faithful stewardship. It doesn’t bother me that you don’t “believe in” the Catholic Church. What I do find offensive, however, is your unnecessarily dismissive attitude and belittlement of the pains and sanctity that are really necessary for faithful transmission. I don’t find this offensive from a Catholic or Orthodox point of view, I find it offensive from a human point of view. (And my disappointment isn’t personal, so please don’t feel like I’m implying anything about your character or person. For all I know, this is an accidental and reasonable oversight on your part. But it is an oversight, and dialectically you’re a little cold about what has actually gone on in the writing and transmission of the Scriptures.) Don’t just be thankful that the Church was so good as to put a binder around some stacks of paper; be thankful that men slew their own wills in the hopes of (and in many cases the actualization of) God’s will in their hearts, that this actualization allowed them (mystery and wonder) to be living examples and Scriptures in their own right of what God’s Word and Truth is. Be thankful, also, that the Church in general agreed that all of them should be elevated to positions of authority within the Church—say, bishops or priests. The Bible would not have been “transmitted” otherwise.

If you find the fact that God “relies” on us, so to speak, that his will may be done, I can only say, “Welcome to Christianity!” I don’t mean that flippantly. As St. Athanasius said, “God became what we are that we might become what he is.” There is no middle ground of mere transmission whereby the transmitter can keep from being radically redirected and sanctified in a frame of reference totally out of keeping with this world, and it’s simply not possible to give due preference to God without giving preference to what he prefers—which apparently was to entrust men to “stand in his place” as authors of the words he dictated. To hark back to the transcendence/immanence dichotomy, it is God’s will that his Word and Truth be made manifested in the hearts and lives of those who have truly given themselves over to him. He has made it plain, I think, that he himself has no desire to do what he wants done, just by himself. Redemption comes at us both perpendicularly from above (transcendence) and from within (immanence). If men wrote the Bible—and they can, without any violence to God—be said to have done so, they have done so by becoming more like God. This deserves some sort of respect, I should think.

“So, you're saying that it's basically an inaccurate statement, but that's OK because people ought to be able to mentally correct it? And remember, Jay's post is about "talking to non-Christians". If we wish to communicate clearly, it would help to say what we actually mean.”

Enthymemes are perfectly acceptable forms of dialectic. And this need for precision works both ways. You have yourself insisted that it is a total falsity to speak of the Church as having responsibility of any kind for the writing of the Gospels. The logical conclusion of this, of course, is that nobody can claim any responsibility for anything, since God owns everything, ultimately, which de facto relieves people both of their virtues and their vices when carried to the extent that you are carrying it. If you want to qualify your statement by saying that we are speaking of what is ultimately true, please don’t forget that ultimately there is nothing but God. If, however, you want to speak of what is relatively true, by virtue of God’s immanence, then please don’t forget that God has given us power, and deserves to have this decision on his part respected by respecting the people who accepted it.

I think what you really mean to say is that the Church can be said to have “authored” the Gospels, but not so high or absolute and authorship as God—a point with which nobody is arguing. I will break one of the rules of good dialectic and give voice to a suspicion I have, without having compelling evidence for it: I suspect that you are deliberately overstating your case in the hopes of overpowering a tendency that you do not think can be met except in extremis; you’re fighting fire with fire, when quite frankly yours is the only fire I see.

If you really do believe that the dichotomy between God’s will and man’s is total, surely this removes from man any ability to answer God’s attempt to redeem him. How could man then be saved? In order to be saved thusly, he must become utterly unlike himself, meaning that there would be no self left over after redemption. Redemption, of course, is the saving of what is good (and therefore from God or, what amounts to the same thing, God himself) out from among what is bad. If, however, you believe that this dichotomy is not total, then you must believe that we are all “responsible,” relatively speaking, for “authoring” the truth in this world that we have the courage to enact insofar as God is in us doing so. Again, God speaking through me entails a great deal more than simple transmission.

“Tobias: In point of fact, Kaff, Scripture almost never refers to itself at all.
With all due respect, Tobias, you have got to be kidding me. Scripture is replete with self-referential material, including quotations of itself, interpretations of itself, praise of itself as God's Word. Not only this, but explicit statements about its own character and purpose are easily found, having been made by practically every major character in the New Testament, including Peter (2 Peter 1:21, on the authority of scripture), Paul (2 Tim 3:16, on the sufficiency of scripture), John (John 20:31, on the purpose of scripture), Luke (Acts 17:11, on the value of the study of scripture), and even Christ Himself (John 10:35, on the infallibility of scripture). “

Another enthymeme, which I thought would be understood in context. I can simplify with two points: 1) the Scriptures that are being referred to in the verses you site knew nothing about the Bible that comes a few centuries afterwards. The Bible is never referred to as such anywhere in the Bible. In point of actual fact, there were many non-canonical Scriptures that were read in church for the first three centuries, even after the canon was established, and doubtless some of these were also in mind when the various Biblical authors were mentioning scriptures in general. 2) I think it’s a little odd that you would read a Scripture written by a man who claims that the Scriptures he’s writing was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and interpret this as meaning that the man who is telling you this is purely accidental and not essentially and deeply related to what’s being said. You can probably see the big question coming: how did you accept the writer’s claim if there were not something about what he had written to compel you to believe him? If you answer is that the Holy Spirit told you, then why did you need to read the Scripture to know what had already been told to you? If not directly by the Holy Spirit, how could you tell that he had faithfully transmitted God’s word to you if there were not something in his own act of faithfulness, accomplished by a mastery of the will, that led you to believe that he had faithfully transmitted God’s Word? Or did God come to you personally and say, “You can trust Peter. He’s on my side.” I mean, doesn’t Peter deserve *some* credit, and doesn’t the fact that he was a bishop who appointed other bishops jive with you at all?

With regard to the writers of the Scriptures: you can take the man out of the Holy Spirit, but you can’t take the Holy Spirit out of the man.

“Tobias, Tobias, I believe, I really do believe, that God's authority can be worked out through man. You are reminding me of the possibility that God's authority can be exercised through the Church, and of course it can. But the two are still not completely equivalent.”

Nobody has once made the claim that they are. What we have said relates to your next point:

“When we say Dan Brown "authored" a book we mean to say that it was his creative process that produced it. But for Holy Scripture the claim is fundamentally different; the human writers operated under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and therefore it is more appropriate to say God "authored" scripture”

But the human beings who wrote those Scriptures were themselves inspirations, manifestations of God. They were not raw material to be used for the spreading of the truth. They were God himself manifesting himself as Writer of the Word. They were keenly aware of the fact that, not being God themselves, they were nonetheless given the privilege of symbolizing him in this “mode” of author. Surely that’s not too difficult to swallow.

“ . . . when we refer to collective authorship of a work, we are referring primarily to the authority of the organization as that which underpins the work. “

On the contrary, nobody here, or anywhere else for that matter, has ever made that claim within my hearing. It sounds like the kind of claim some folks *would* make, but I don’t know of a Catholic who has done so. When we refer to collective authorship, we are referring primarily to individuals who, by “dying daily” gave up their lives for Christ and, finding themselves within a group of “dying-daily-for-Christ-people,” found that group blessed by each man’s endeavor to know God fully. The grouping is, as it were, an “accident” of the sanctity or insight of the men involved, but it is an established “accident.” If people go on to point out that that these men were aware of this “accidental grouping” and knew nothing was an accident, that all occurred by the grace of God, and accepted the authority that de facto came along with this grouping—if such people point out these things, this is only because they are not too proud to point out the obvious.

"The Church did absolutely did not write the Bible". Yet, it is still fair game to discuss whether the novel assertion that "The Church wrote the Bible" is accurate”

Technical point: this claim is not novel. It has been ubiquitously discussed for millennia. One thinks of the Comte and Abelard and all those folks discussing these sorts of things…

“If that is true may I ask you to produce such a document?”

*Early Christian Fathers,* published by Collier Books. I especially would recommend the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch. You may already know that according to the early Christians, St. Ignatius was the young boy whom Christ had come to him in his “Suffer the little children to come unto me…” sermon. He was later made bishop. Your suspicion of the Church, if it is a suspicion, does not jive well with what the early Christians thought of it. The following reflect the high regard in which the early Christians held the Church.

“Since there are so many clear testimonies, we should not seek from others for the truth which can easily be received from the Church. There the apostles, like a rich man making a deposit, fully bestowed upon her all that belongs to the truth, so that whoever wishes may receive…She [the Church] is the entrance to life…Therefore we ought to love with the greatest zeal the things of the Church, and so to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. What if there should be a dispute about some matter of moderate importance? Should we not turn to the oldest churches, where the apostles themselves were known, and find out from them the clear and certain answer to the problem now being raised? Even if the apostles had not left their Writings to us, ought we not to follow the rule of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they committed the churches?”—St. Irenaeus, “An Exposition of the Faith,” 4:2

I can’t quote it all, but much of St. Irenaeus’s “Exposition” tells about how the churches preceded the Gospels. Some more on the high regard of the Church and her ecclesiastical hierarchy.

“Thus, united in your submission, and subject to the bishop and the presbytery, you will be real saints.” Ephesians 2:2

“I hasten to urge you to harmonize your actions with God’s mind. For Jesus Christ—that life from which we can’t be torn—is the Father’s mind, as the bishops, too, appointed the world over, reflect the mind of Jesus Christ. Hence you should act in accord with the bishop’s mind…” Ephesians 3:2

“I am delighted with [the deacon Zotion], because he submits to the bishop as to God’s grace, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ.” Magnesians 2

“Rather submit to the presbytery as to the apostles of Jesus Christ…They represent Jesus Christ, just as the bishop has the role of the Father…you cannot have a church without these.” Trallians 2:3

“You should all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ did the Father. Follow, too, the presbytery as you would the apostles; and respect the deacons as you would God’s law.” Smyrnaeans 8:1

Two quotations from the Bible that are very telling, with regard to the Church:

“…the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth.” 1 Timothy 3:15
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15

The first quotation puts the Church at the root of Truth in this world. Take it up with Timothy. The second says clearly that an oral teaching, rooted in or being carried by tradition, has as much weight as a written epistle. Curious.

“This is a bit off-topic, but I advise that you take care in making such sweeping statements. I think it is safer to say that God often includes us but to insist He always does comes perilously close to the idea that it is necessary that He do so, which infringes on His sovereignty.”

It is not unlike God to allow us to infringe on his sovereignty.

“To answer your dare more directly, God's predestination of us as believers (Eph 1:5) to be called out by a wisdom from "before the ages" (1 Cor 2:7) must have been done without our inclusion, given the fact that we were not present.”

But if Christ was slain at the foundation of the world, and since wherever Christ is, there also are the “elect”…you get the picture. But in all honesty, Kaff, I don’t actually know what it means for God to call us out when we are not “present” yet. I don’t remember being there, but then I also don’t remember being born.

“"The Church [and by this we do not mean 'the church' as a whole, but only certain leaders of the early church] Wrote [and by this we do not mean 'wrote', as in, 'one day the entire church decided it was going to create some scripture' but rather 'individuals operated under the direct supervision and inspiration of the Spirit of God' so much so that it is in fact more accurate to say 'God wrote'] the Bible [and by this we do not mean 'the Bible' but just the last 20% or so]".”

Again, you’re trying to tell your opponent what he believes. This statement doesn’t do justice at all to what we mean by “The Church wrote the Bible.” Let’s put it this way: you can insist all you want to that the best way to give preference to God is to ignore what he has preferred to do. And it is plain from historical data and the writings of the early Christians themselves that the unity of the Gospels relies first on God and second on the faithfulness of the body of believers whom God had chosen to fulfill the Gospels in deed and word—the latter precisely because God gave them the gift of being able to do so. If you don’t respect either the gift, the Giver, or the recipient, then by all means insist that there is such a thing as a Giver who does not give. But that way madness lay.

“The problem is not that the statement "The Church Wrote the Bible" has absolutely no sense in which it could be considered true.”

If so, then there is no sense in which any statement of responsibility that does not overtly recognize God as the author of all things can be true. You’re inadvertently cornering yourself into solipsism and relativism.

“But here we are talking about transmission which is a completely different notion than Jay's claim that the authorship and authority of Scripture springs primarily from the Church, which I contest. “

Sorry, dude, but Jay was insisting that between sola scriptura and the current Protestant-inflamed relativism that sees the Gospels as just happening some how, on the one hand, and the idea that the Church was the “ground and pillar of truth,” the latter is the only viable choice. The Church, in the context of human authors, is the primary author. In the context of total spirituality, nobody has once said that the Church supersedes God. Speaking of Protestant-inflamed relativism…

“If you want to go to Luther on this topic, here is what he had to say, from his commentary on Galatians 1:9 (in which the Apostle Paul famously claims “if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!”

Let me see if I’m following you. You are recommending, as an authority, an article demanding the superiority of the Scriptures over the Church, written by a man who himself disbelieved in the Holy Spirit’s guidance of those Scriptures (apparently the Holy Spirit just wasn’t powerful enough to rout out that awful James character)—all of this, as an example of how we should give precedence to the Holy Spirit over human judgment? And, not to point out the obvious, but: the Church isn’t superior to the Scriptures, but Luther himself is, who felt adequate to wholly condemning certain parts of it? Hmmm…

As for the quotation itself, his argument has one huge fallacy. If we say that the Church is principially prior to the Scriptures, it is a big jump to go from there to saying that any individual, qua individual, may make any judgment upon the Scriptures that he pleases. Again, how Luther feels comfortable with lecturing the Pope or the Church for feeling superior and himself so effortlessly passes judgment on the very Scriptures he is trying to protect from their authority is beyond me. But logic and reason were not exactly his strong point, and this quotation is a good example of that. Suffice it to say that if I say X with properties Y is principially prior to event Z, that does not somehow rationally mean that individual A without properties Y is principially prior to event Z. You will need a good many steps to get from the one to the other, none of which Luther provides. The fact that Luther was precisely individual A feeling superior both to group X and Z, should be enough in fallacy to give us pause as to his argumentative power.

Tobias

Hello Matthew,

Of course Eusebius may call the Epistle of James “disputed” and be a Saint, but when Luther disputes the same he is a Devil. No matter; my purpose here is not really to defend or attack Luther. Rather I merely point out the ill logic embedded in the constant refrain “The Church [but not really ‘the universal body of believers’] Wrote [but did not really ‘create from its own inspiration’] the Bible [but not meaning ‘the Old and New Testaments’].”

Are you willing to consider whether that sentence is accurate in representing the truth?

Wishing you well, Kaff

Jay,

Your response makes sense, but it also illustrates my point. Within that paradigm (I suspect driven by Aristotelian logic with a little bit of Descarte) if ANY of those characteristics are not God's, then God does not exist, and so should not be th object of faith. But then, the presupposition is that these are a priori characteristics of God. According to Kreeft and friend, KNOWLEDGE of God is available only to those who embrace the same paradigm as Kreeft and friend. For those that do not, such knowledge is simply NOT available.

Their proofs remind me of the fundamentalist who says the Bible is absolutely correct in every detail because it is God's word, since God is infinite and absolute truth and consistency, then his word must be also.

Hi Tobias,

Thanks for the response. Unfortunately time does not allow me to even begin to counter that barrage. You feel I am strawmanning what is meant by "The Church Wrote The Bible" when I take the words at their obvious face value and as used in lay-level Roman Catholic apologetic. I simply argue that a better forumlation be found. Perhaps it is because you feel I am strawmanning that you gave yourself license to misrepresent my position as asserting some kind of absolute dichotomy between God's will and man's action (despite my repeated denials) to the hyperbolic degree that "nobody can claim any responsibility for anything". Well, pressing one another into increasingly absurd conclusions is not really my idea of a productive discussion so I am content to let the discussion, and my case, rest.

Honestly, I do thank you for the time you have invested, Tobias. I do hope to spend some time with St. Irenaeus on this question when time allows.

My best to you, Kaff

Kaff,

Eusebius is not a Saint. He was a defender of the Arians and accused at the Second Council of Nicaea of heresy (with his own writings as evidence). He also took part in the campaign against St. Athanasius at the synods of Caesarea and Tyre.

As a theologian, he made a pretty good historian... which is still one better than Luther ;)

I'm not sure I understand your point above, but if you mean what I think you mean, well my 'strawman' alarm is going nuts...

Tobias

I don't think I'm going to post anymore...I'm just going to wait on your posts :) You say 70% of what I want to say but much better...and you are kind to Kaff too;) I must have a special purgatorial purification (if I am graced to make it there) due to how I go back and forth with him.

In Love

when we were one

Hi Fidens, my apologies for the error. I got confused with a different Eusebius (who was a saint).

Kaff

Dear All

Why do I get the idea that we've been through so much of this before, ad nauseam? Here I have in mind things like sola scriptura and the RC Church having written the NT. And, why do I get the idea that many non-Catholics seem to believe things like:

Yes, Jesus founded a Church, but no-one can be certain on which rock or which church. Maybe Peter was the "first among equals" as regards the Apostles, but it was never intended by Jesus that he, Peter, should have a successor. Let alone a Catholic Pope.

In fact, it seems clear that, even if Jesus did confer some powers on the Apostles (according to Catholic tradition), he never intended that they should be passed on to anyone else (which puts paid to the Catholic teaching of the Apostolic succession).

With the death of the last Apostle, by which time all the Gospels had been written (give or take a few last words to John's Gospel, perhaps), sola scriptura became the only authoritative source of information. This is because the New Testament writings were so clear and comprehensive that anyone would be able to find the answer to a problem, even centuries later, whether or not it was specifically mentioned in the Gospels.

From this, it becomes clear how ridiculous the Catholic notion of "tradition" is.

After the death of the last Apostle, the people formed themselves into a totally new Church, which had no specific links to the Church originally founded by Jesus. This church eventually became known as the Roman Catholic Church. From this it becomes clear how ridiculous the claims are that the RCC was founded by Jesus and that the Gospels were written by early Catholics.

The RCC, had structures that were not even mentioned in the Gospels, and which were clearly unbiblical. To make matters worse, the RCC required its members to believe in doctrines, including the Real Presence, purgatory and various beliefs about Mary, that had no biblical foundation, which was the reason it withheld the scriptures from its members.

Jesus not only intended that there should be no "apostolic successsion", but he also knew that, at some stage, someone would write the Gospels and that sola scriptura would enable everyone to have a clear understanding of those Gospels, with or without any prior instruction. This was to enable any person to found a church.

Fortunately, with the invention of the printing press and a greater number of people being able to read and write, the scandalous beliefs of the Catholic Church have at last been laid bare and the true intentions of Jesus are becoming increasingly realised.

But, enough of that. If I have offended anyone, I apologise. I'm not suggesting that the Catholic Church is beyond reproach. Far from it. In fact, we can learn much from our separated bretheren. I only wish they would try to be a bit more open-minded so as to learn from us as well.

So, let's get back to the topic "A religious framework: Justifying the Christian Concept".

Why did I get the impression that we were going to be discussing things like the Islamic belief that Jesus is only a prophet? And, what about the Old and the New Testaments only being the "inspired" word of God, whereas Muslims believe that their Scriptures were dictated by the Angel Gabriel round about 600 AD, effectively replacing the Old and New Testaments? I also get a bit nervous when people say that, because the Catholic Church has been going for 2000 years, it must be the only true Church. What about Hinduism which is far older? And what about Islam, which has been around for 1400 years and is arguably growing faster than Catholicism, worldwide?

In Christ
Brian R

Bri

Indeed it can be tedious but let us thank our Father for giving us the grace to be witnessing in this manner. We could have been born under Diocletian or worse Nero. Also let us thank our Father that he has chosen us to be active Catholics and not one with such invincible opacity of reason.

When I get frustrated the Paraclete speaks to me in Titus 3:1-5 and 1 Peter 3:15. And I remember that we are being googled everyday by someone that has never been here and has not read the library and we then repeat as Paul did when he went to a new town. Every week we are at a new town brothers...some come with us to question more...like Kaff or SandT and hopefully our Father pours forth his grace so they may also see through the mists that have cursed us at times in our lives.

In Love

when we were one

Hey Brian. The biggest difficulty with your argument is that it is self-defeating. If, after the Apostles died, sola scripture really was the only way we had to go, one wonders why the successors to the Apostles used sola scriptura to justify the ordaining of bishops and clergy, an already established hierarchy of ordained offices with duties specific to each of them. And, before you reload your argument that "nothing" like the RCC hierarchy existed during the early Church, think about these two points: 1) it is an historically established fact (chronicled for us in the apocryphal writings of St. John the Apostle and St. Ignatius of Antioch, to name only two of dozens) that Apostles who had known Christ Himself were ordaining bishops and priests and establishing "traditions" before the last of the Apostles had died; I might also point out that Paul speaks highly of tradition; and 2) the unanimous agreement of every Christian for over a millenia--starting with the Apostles themselves and extending until after Luther--was that sola scriptura (again, supposing you are right that this is what the early Christians fell back on without the Apostles around) was to be used to buttress the establishment of an ecclesiastical hierarchy that the Apostles themselves bear witness to. So far as I know, they never once used it to justify interpreting the Scriptures by oneself. The big question for you is, if sola scriptura was the failsafe that you say it is, why do you not use it in the same way and to the same ends as the early (and most) Christians themselves did? There is plenty of historical documentation on how the earliest Christians (again, starting from before the death of all the Apostles) used your sola scriptura to undermine unbridled sola scriptura. There is no historical evidence that sola scriptura was ever used by any Christian for over a thousand years in the way that you are using it. Though, again, there is plenty of evidence that heretics used sola scriptura--reading the Scriptures without any direction from authority--to deny the divinity of Christ.

Polycarp and Ignatius both had known Christ Himself before his Crucifixion, and both, in the letters they wrote before they died, told as many Christians as they could that the best way they could show their love of Christ was to obey the bishop. The early Church is positively soaking in ecclesiastical hierarchy that is contemporary to the Apostles, as well as deeply rooted traditions. The Lenten fast was taught to the Indians by the Apostle Thomas on the one hand, and to the Egyptians and Ethiopians by the Apostle Mark on the other. That's a separation of thousands of miles, and Thomas and Mark both left Israel relatively early on after Christ died. So...we have to conclude that the Lenten fast existed decades before Thomas and Mark were martyred.

This argument is extended ad nauseum because those who promote sola scriptura have to be reminded again and again and again that from 0 AD to the seventeeth century we have little or no documentation condemning ecclesiastical hierarchy per se (and this includes what is written in the Bible), nor is there once any mention in all that time of the idea of sola scriptura as the primary means of interpreting or understanding the Scriptures. Point of fact: tradition and ecclesiastical hierarchy have a firm root in the Apostles themselves. I will be glad to hear of any evidence to the contrary.

Tobias

Brian,

I find your perception of protestantism quite fascinating. Especially the notion that the early Church resolved issues of interpretation with a council of apostles with Peter functioning as an earthly head (Acts 16) speaking infallibly on behalf of the Holy Spirit.

In my final months as a Protestant, I came to realize how unworkable the Protestant model was. If in fact the death of the "last Apostle" did in fact bring about a transition from "rule by Apostle" to "rule by Scripture", then no Christian Church can in fact claim to resemble the church of the New Testament. Or to put it another way, I came to believe that without apostolic succession, there could be no "Church of the New Testament" (Protestant or Catholic), and that the Church disappeared with the death of the last apostle.

In fact, it was then that I learned that Mormons believe precisely that the Church disappeared after the death of the last Apostle and reappeared when John the Baptist and Jesus Christ appointed Joseph Smith to start a new apostolic succession.

Of course, this did not convince me that the Roman Catholic Church had apostolic succession. Only that if no one could provide apostolic succession, then there was no such thing as a Christian Church. Or in other words, Protestantism could not deliver a stable middle ground in which a Christian Church exists without an apostolic succession. Whether the Roman Catholic Church could deliver on what it promised remained an open question in my mind.

But the Bible guaranteed that the Church would endure. So if I believed that the Church ceased to exist (as the Mormons did) then I would have to believe that the gospels were unreliable as well (which the Mormons also believed). And it was then that I realized that if I accepted the authority of the Bible, I also had to accept the apostolic succession.

I wonder if those fine young Mormon men in suits who came to our doorstep will ever know how much they helped me to embrace the Roman Catholic faith.

BR

Hmmmm...a very interesting story. Thank you for sharing your experience.

Chesterton notes on his conversion that his last moments as a Protestant was like the instant before metal flies to the magnet. Once you converted BR did you just go head long or did you still battle the thought of becoming Catholic?

In Love

when we were one

WWWO,

I'm more of a "revert" than a "convert". I left the Roman Catholic Church reluctantly after I realized my (Protestant) doctrinal convictions placed me outside the boundaries of acceptable Catholic thought.

After about a year and a half of marriage (in hindsight we should probably have delayed marriage until I sorted out my issues with the Roman Catholic Church), my wife suggested that since so many of my objections to Roman Catholicism had vanished and that I had so many new objections to Protestantism - I should look are returning.

My main concern the same one which prevented CS Lewis from ever joining. "I believe and profess all that the Roman Catholic Church proclaims to be revealed by God". This was in essence both a blank cheque and a written one which included the Council of Trent and the Marian dogmas proclaimed under Papal Infallibility. I still had serious doubts and issues over these and I also did not yet trust the authority of Tradition and the Magisterium.

My priest said that I could explore these issues from inside the Church rather than outside - I was skeptical but I took his advice anyway. It took a few years for me to come in line on those issues.

Since then I have come to appreciate the beauty of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, the beauty of subordinating the liturgy of the Word to the liturgy of the Eucharist, and the beauty of the Catholic teachings on marriage, parenthood, and fatherhood.

In practice, unfortunately, I just wind up complaining a lot, so few people benefit. I get angry with my diocese for making first confession at age 9 and communion at age 7 (Catechism says explicitly confession comes first). I get angry with ushers and "Sunday School Teachers" for refusing to bring the children back into the Church at the Offertory (the idea of missing mass and committing mortal sin whe you were twenty feet away doing crafts). I get frustrated with my school for "normalizing" situations where children to do not live with their father. I despise Church functions/fundraisers where little children either cost as much as adults or get disinvited.

As you can see, still I have a long way to go when it comes to embracing the Catholic lifestyle of conversion through kindness, self-sacrifice, forgiveness, mercy, and patience.

Though I do have to laugh when the SSPX and other traditionalists people criticize Pope John Paul II for his "negligence". The things they call flaws in our late Pope I call shining examples of the Christian virtues I sorely lack. There was a man of conviction who also embodies the compassion I so sorely lack.

Karol Wojtyla, ora pro nobis.

Brian:

I didn't have time to reply to your questions about other religions, though the validity or lack of validity of other religious perspectives has been on my mind for several years now, and while I don't know nearly enough about them to speak authoritatively, or anywhere near it, I've tried to familiarize myself with them and come to some sort of understanding that is, I hope, objective.

Obviously, it's too big a question to give it it's due in a small posting, but I think we can say that while many folks validate Christianity as opposed to any other religion because of some minor attribute of Christianity (the fact that it has lasted 2000 years, for instance), it's real validity relies on how much reality can be found in it, and does it correspond to man's predicament in the cosmos. I, personally, don't think that the other religions can be dismissed out of hand; on the one hand, Christ is the light which lighteth *every* man who cometh into the world, and on the other, I agree with C.S. Lewis's suggestion in various writings that most religious perspectives outside of Christianity are appropriations of divinity that were more unguided than they were supposed to be. When his character Ransom saw Mars and Venus with his own eyes, he realized that the problem was with how they were reduced in the minds of men from being what they truly are--not with Mars and Venus themselves. There's nothing inherently evil about angels living on Mt. Olympus eating ambrosia; the problem comes in when men do not think of them in reference to the One Who Is. That being said, I think that one can see "parts" of Christianity in other religions. To be certain, I think that a real, holistic Christian vision of the world is going to take it on faith that nothing and no one can be *completely* wrong, no matter how misguided, and that therefore a justification of the Christian framework will not have to succeed by utter denial of all other frameworks in every way. The truth "is everywhere pr