Eye of the Tiber: My Journey to Catholicism Pt.2

I had written this on my Facebook May 1st, 2012. Names have been changed. Most of what follows is a discussion on Sola Scriptura. Since then, two of my friends, Devin and Brian, do not hold to Sola Scriptura, but now hold a similar position I adopted soon after I had this conversation. More on that in a later post.

Adrian: ...This same priest presented me with this challenge, and frankly, I was stumped. He said something like, "The church did not come from the Bible. The Bible came from the church. The Church canonized the Bible. This implies the power of the church." Thoughts? This is obviously an attack of Sola Scriptura.

Taft: If I may, ”the church” did not give authority to scripture, they recognized the inherent authority that it had. That is a MASSIVE divide. Canonizing was not a process of granting authority to books. Instead it was the process of recognizing what was already inspired.

Jeremy:  About the Church forming the Bible and not the other way around... Clement of Rome's letter is the earliest Christian writing in existence (it is not short either, it is about as long as a Gospel or more). And he *regularly* cites the same New Testament that we have (obviously not all the letters, but that would be unrealistic). He doesn't appeal to tradition as authority but rather Paul's letters and the OT. I was really shocked to discover this. Having read the early Fathers up to 150 AD, I haven't seen any disagreement about which Epistles they accept, it isn't even a question in their minds. You can read Clement of Rome and see for yourself. Then you can answer the priest.

Vladimir:  About the Church forming the Bible and not the other way around... That's not technically true. Holy Spirit formed Bible. The Catholic church would like to believe it's their deed. Furthermore, if you take church as Christ's body and consider that church formed bible, then I would say - this early church did it, again under the influence of the Holy Spirit. This early church by no means belongs more to Catholics than to our church. It belongs equally. P.S. this is former Catholic-former atheist-present disciple speaking; my way was similar to Adrian's. Also baptized 3 years ago.

Adrian: Taft, I'm sure Catholics will agree with you. But there seems to be implied power in saying that the Church has authority to recognize which books were inspired. I certainly can't do that. I wouldn't know how. When I read the Bible, there is nothing that pops out to me and I conclude, Ah, yes, this right here is inspired. How is it that a group of people can do that?

Taft: Well... The very fact that the catholic faith believes that the pope has the divine authority to impute authority qualitatively to scripture is something that makes me squeem. In regards to how we would differentiate between inherently authoritative scripture from God and non scripture..... There are several elements play. On the most basic foundation there is something supernatural about recognizing Gods voice and discerning his voice from other voices. This of course is something that should be honed throughout our lives as we learn more about God and know him more deeply. (Adrian I would challenge you to - if you have not yet done so - to read through Mormon scriptures to see if you have an internal barometer that can discern if they are scripture or not subjectively.) On another level there was a lot of tedious painstaking examination done on the texts to ensure that anything canonized was consistent with existing revelation. The process had checks and balances, canonization was not a flippant affair. An understanding of what was involved ought to instill confidence in the tenacity of Gods word rather than the opposite. I would bring up one more major detail: To address he apocrypha- The apocrypha was only briefly accepted in Christendom (east africa coptics) based on a misunderstanding since it had been bound with the scriptures and they unwittingly assumed the apocrypha was accepted as scripture by and large. (the coptics were a poor case study in discernment  they accepted just about anything as scripture in the first place). So through a series of events this was passed on to the catholic church. At one point jerome learned the error of this blunder and tried to correct the problem but was eventually trumped by the Popes (cough) sovereign decree. This a terribly condensed bullet point version of the history. I can provide a much clearer picture of this in the future but I've got to brush up on my history a little bit to provide more detail.

Wiggles:  "the church" we have to also draw a distinction as to biblical church and institutional church as well. The catholic church sees their organization as "the church" whereas the bible shows the church as a fellowship of believers. This is an important concept to grasp in this discussion as well. Because like David said, the body of believers "the church" recognized the already authoritative word of god. Here is my point. The holy spirit works through the believer by extension the church (defined as a body of believers) to do his will. And this is what gives scriptures their authority. Not the church, but gods spirit.

Adrian: Taft, Pope is a red herring. I have read the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants. Not completely, but I've gone through enough. I had no internal subjective feeling about it. I just don't work that way I guess. I did reject Mormonism because it was in fact inconsistent with what I already believed to be true, but not for some subjective feeling. Now, I understand the criteria you've mentioned, but I don't think it quite helps your case. I understand that we use that criteria to determine what may have been true, but because it is true or it is an accurate description of things happened, does it follow that it is INSPIRED? I think not. I could write something that could happen to be true, but it doesn't mean God intended it to be revelation. So while these criteria is good and well, I don't think it sets out a criteria for inspiration. Wiggles, I would like reasons as to why you believe what you said. I'm finding it difficult to find the connection here: "The holy spirit works through the believer by extension the church (defined as a body of believers) to do his will. And this is what gives scriptures their authority." How does this follow?

Taft:  Pope a Red Herring - I think not. Please explain your accusation. It seems obvious that if you cannot determine what is inspired by both objective and subjective means then you are left with a conundrum of including things that may be true but not inspired. This is precisely why Christ said that his sheep hear his voice. Otherwise there would be no way for anyone to know what was truly from him. The scripture must be first consistent with existing revelation and after that it is a matter of the Holy Spirit illuminating the believer to recognize his voice. You cannot divorce Christianity from this phenomenon. Christ says his sheep will not follow another. If you lack this Adrian then that would seem to be the primary reason that a distinction between the 2 methods does not seem more obvious to some degree.

Adrian:  Topic: How do we distinguish between inspired and non-inspired? Your reply: I don't like the Pope's power. My reply: Uhh...ok. Red herring. And remember, I am not a Catholic. I am not looking forward to being persuaded to be a Catholic. So let that be a clue as to my objective approach to the reasons that have been presented to me from non-Catholics."It seems obvious that if you cannot determine what is inspired by both objective and subjective means then you are left with a conundrum of including things that may be true but not inspired." EXACTLY MY POINT! I am asking, HOW is this done. You gave a subjective answer. I replied as to how weak that is. You gave an objective answer. I replied how weak that is as well. "This is precisely why Christ said that his sheep hear his voice." LOL, I'm guessing you're a Calvinist. Am I correct? Let it be known, that I reject Calvinistic interpretations of scripture, and ESPECIALLY the one you are referring to. I tend to find myself in the Molinist camp. Molina was a Catholic as well, so, things just keep getting funnier. But Calvinist or not, I really don't think Jesus was thinking of inspiration of his future biographies. I think it more probable that he was talking about obedience to him as he was talking to Pharisees (Pharisees, btw, who probably became Christians some years later, so...did God suddenly change his mind to elect them?)

Taft: Adrian, re read my response carefully. The pope comment is in no way shape or form a red herring or meant to distract from the subject. In fact it fits perfectly within the larger context the point I was making. Your issue is that you reject the larger context of my answer and therefore from your religous paradigm must dismiss my comment as a red herring. I will flow up later with a more thorough explanation of what I mean. “"The church did not come from the Bible. The Bible came from the church. The Church canonized the Bible. This implies the power of the church." Thoughts? This is obviously an attack of Sola Scriptura.” - False Dichotomy.
My first observation is the oversimplified way that this is phrased. “The church did not come from the Bible”?
Faith comes from God. The Bible came from God. The church came from God. The Bible is a historical remnant of God’s interaction with man. So, in essence the Bible was formed by God through his interaction with mankind. To say the Bible “came from the Church” is technically true in a way, it would be as true as saying that a pot comes from clay and totally neglecting that a potter used clay to form the pot. To phrase it the way he did seems to be an intentional attempt to muddy the waters. The same exact thing goes for “the church canonized the Bible”.
Now to cut to the chase. The real meat in this entire post, the foundational key issue is what you have stated here, “Now, I understand the criteria you've mentioned, but I don't think it quite helps your case. I understand that we use that criteria to determine what may have been true, but because it is true or it is an accurate description of things happened, does it follow that it is INSPIRED? I think not. I could write something that could happen to be true, but it doesn't mean God intended it to be revelation. So while these criteria is good and well, I don't think it sets out a criteria for inspiration. “ <- It seems clear to me this is a theological/spiritual question in nature that can ONLY be answered theologically/spiritually. Once we nail down what is not inspired through careful study what are we left with to determine truth. Well, I gave you a legitimately theological answer to the question and you quite hastily dismissed possibly the simplest, clearest, easiest to understand and fitting answer to your question on the face of the earth.
How do we know God’s words from that which is not God’s words? There is no systematic way to be sure. At the end of the day when all of the brightest, most educated individuals have studied the text to the fullest you are still left with text. To know which is spiritual and which is not requires spiritual discernment. If you do not have the ability to discern spiritual things then I cannot help you other than to say you must earnestly seek God and ask him for that trait since it only comes from him in the first place.
I thess 4:9 “Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God”
1 Corinthians 2: 12Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
14The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16“For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
Isaiah 54:13,” All your children shall be taught by the LORD,and great shall be the peace of your children.”
John 6:45 It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—“ 65-And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
John 8:47 “Whoever is of God hears the words of God.”
John 10:3-5 “The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.”
14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me,”
27 “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”
Yes, I do believe in the doctrines of Grace, God’s sovereignty and his personal foreknowledge by decree. I really could care not whether you reject Calvinistic interpretations of scripture. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t force him to drink. So Adrian you can dismiss, jest, joke whatever but the text is clear. The hearing of the voice leads to the following. The context of the passage is that those who don’t hear his voice don’t know him. Try as you may to get around this elementary principle. *I get the inclination that you are not being 100% honest when you say that you have no spiritual discernment when it comes to reading the BOM*
“But Calvinist or not, I really don't think Jesus was thinking of inspiration of his future biographies.” That is an unfounded opinion and I’m somewhat aghast that you would reduce the Bible to mere literature. Adrian from your supposedly un-subjective experience perhaps you have no reason even to assume that any scripture was inspired in the first place that even can be discerned; I’m not sure why you would. Perhaps the Gospels to you are just a lifeless biography that God cannot/does not speak to people through subjectively. I am reminded of a scripture 2 Timothy 3:5 “having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. And 7 “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.“
The fact is that Christ is still bringing sheep into his fold even today. The Bible is the living word of God through which he communicates the meat of his doctrines that he preserves through his people. This is no different really than me saying that my children know my voice and they follow me but will not listen to a stranger because they don’t recognize their voice. It is an intimate personal knowing that he has with us therefore we head in the spiritual direction he’s at when we hear him. If my wife wrote me a letter and someone else wrote an imposter I would intuitively know the difference because of the personal knowledge we have of one another. That’s not to say every 2 married people are quite as acute in their knowledge of each other so there will inevitably be variations in their ability to discern the fakes depending on their level of intimacy and so it is with Christians.
On a side note I really have no idea why you would make this following statement Adrian, since I can tell you are an intelligent person. “(Pharisees, btw, who probably became Christians some years later, so...did God suddenly change his mind to elect them?)”. Honestly? It is so elementary that it is almost not worth responding to but since I’m here …. So God decrees who he will save – your objection seems to imply that God is not free to open the ears of those he decrees to save on his own preordained timing. It seems like you are thinking that God is obligated to open the ears of all of the predestined all at once? That just doesn’t make sense to me at all. This seems to be a really naïve or ignorant view of personal predestination.
So finally, I do have a spiritual experience with God. I do have discernment and I can subjectively sense in a way what is and is not from God. God’s workings are organic and personal with his people. This is why it makes me squeem to know that the Pope practically holds a place of divinity among Catholics and has the authority to tell his followers what is and is not from God. That is NOT a red herring, it is simply a reality.

Wiggles:  Well stated David. I know what its like to have a purely academic "relationship" with God, try being a Jehovah's Witness for 23 years. God works subjectively through believers all through the biblical narrative. But the objectivity comes from its compilation of text that remain consistent with the character of God and how he works through his people.
At the end of the day however, just like you stated. Our faith in God does not originate through theological academia (Bottom top model) our faith in God starts with God himself (top down) Jesus coming to the earth is case in point of this.
God inspires, God decrees, God ordains, God is the starting point for faith and reason. Its my belief that the reason scripture rings true to me is because I DO HAVE FAITH. My faith came supernaturally, God worked a fine work though me (Yes this is subjective) and because of that work, I was able to "hear his voice" reading scripture only fortifies my faith and hope.
Am I rambling? Ok I'm going to bed. 

Adrian:  Briefly, because I am coming from an atheist family (at least on my moms side) I need that "academic" relationship. I'm quite an evidentialist. There is some benefits to presuppositionalism, but I do not have that luxury of personally employing it. Full length response is unlikely as it is finals week for me now, and I will probably have lost interest by the time I would have the free time to respond. But, engagement welcome on future posts!

Wiggles: Adrian, I think you, Felix, David and I are all right brained people. Nothing is wrong with The academic aspect of our experience with God. But to exclude the subjective aspects of our faith or downplay them is doing the scriptures an injustice. As far as being an evidentialist... Evidence does not exist in a vacuum. What you presuppose about something has a direct influence on how you examine the evidence before you. U see, u cannot purely be a evidentialist. (not saying you are) my point being, even the most hard fast evidentialist must employ aspects of subjectivism. And you know what, that's ok. Exactly, it's quite ironic how many of the naturalist-atheists so proudly hold up the fact that they rely on empirical evidence for what they believe. All at the same time not recognizing how much faith they place in their own logic.
In a worldview absolutely gives no reason or evidence for consistent, transcendent, law of logic, but rather randomness and chaos, they must put faith in the fact that their own logic is consistent in the first place! Again, that's a perfect example of the subjectivity that exists even for people who some claim to be purely objective.

Adrian: oh dear, tag. I reject tag. briefly, and then I'm bowing out for reals this time. Laws of logic are necessary. 2+2=4 is a necessary truth. things that are by nature necessary require no further explanation. this what we say for God. God is a necessary being and thus requires no further explanation. therefore, the laws of logic need no further explanation as they too are necessary, and hence no need for a transcendent explanation.

Taft: So ... you don't reject it.. you simply find it unnecessary.