Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
By the Holy Spirit working among the early Church. as the living Apostles would have known what was to be canonical!By what authority were they "Fixed and accepted"?
No one . . . but what I asked is >I don't know even ONE Catholic who is perfect.
How many Christians do you know who are perfect?
These are qualifications for a pastor; so I would say Jesus knows these qualifications are realistic, since Jesus had Paul give us these standards. But, of course, a person needs to mature in Jesus and in his own home, so he can become so qualified.How many Catholics do you know personally who obey 1 Timothy 3:1-10?
No, not me ... Jesus elevated Peter to a place you don't hold to.
Sorry, but that looks awfully like a blatant denial of what Scripture says:
"And I also say to you that you are PETER ... And I will give YOU the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever YOU bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Matt 16:18-19.
You seem confused. Paul rebuked Peter, NOT for what Peter PREACHED, but for NOT PRACTISING what he preached. This doesn't prove Peter did not have the final say (due to being the only apostle who held the "keys") on what should be preached (dogma and doctrine).
However, it does prove that the Christ-chosen leader of the Church (in this case, Peter) can be rebuked by another Church elder to address a personal failing.
That's why Jesus gave Peter the "keys" (Matt 18-19) ... despite being a flawed human being, he and he alone was guided supernaturally to infallibly decide (ie, have the final say) on what the Church should preach.
The Rule of Sola Scriptura, of course.
The Rule that there can not be an outside authority that determines what IS scripture and what is NOT, as that would place the canon of scripture in subordination to such authority.
Therefore, it must be contained within the pages of scripture alone.
So again I'll ask, WHERE?
All denominations, Catholic or Protestant, accept that the books agreed upon by the church in the early centuries of Christian history are the word of God.
No it's Jesus. He is the truth.
Of course we learned about him from the book, but say we interpret something wrong, that does not lesson his faithfulness or truthfulness.
Since, not a single Protestant or non-denominational church or sect was in existence (that wouldn't be for many more centuries) when these books were agreed upon, and then compiled to give us the Bible, what church is it that you speak of? Keep in mind, you phrased this church in a singular form as "the church."
p.s. The Catholic church is not a denomination.
Have a Blessed day!
The 66 Books of the Canon are the only inspired ones from God, and are the final and supreme authority in all doctrines and practices. but Rome adds additional books not inspired, and also elevated church traditions of men equal to the sacred scriptures!Good Day, Parousia
Where is the world di you come up with such a flawed understanding of what the historical doctrine of Sola scriptura is?
Again for our the the understanding of those that carry the Roman Catholic denominations presuppositions and baseless assertions (therefore).
The Roman Denomination says the church is need to determine a Canon... Name it , and that they are the Church to fulfill that requirement... Claim it.
Silly fallacy known as circular reasoning.
Now I do not hold it against them that they have developed a Canon at Trent for their own members. Just that those members have made a mistake and bought into the fallacy.
What then is Sola Scriptura:
First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.
Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.
And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
What then is sola scriptura?
The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. Sola Scriptura doesn't deny the presence of other authorities subordinate to the Scriptures. The "Sola" refers to its status as the only infallible authority, not the only authority.
In Him,
Bill
Since, not a single Protestant or non-denominational church or sect was in existence (that wouldn't be for many more centuries) when these books were agreed upon, and then compiled to give us the Bible, what church is it that you speak of?
None of them existed until much later in church History, so there was NO Church of Rome back in bible times!That is what's often called "the Undivided Church." It is the Ancient Church that existed prior to the divisions that came about later and produced the denominations we are familiar with today such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Eastern churches, and the Protestant churches.
World Christianity consists of 6 major ecclesiastico-cultural blocs, divided into 300 major ecclesiastical traditions, composed [sic] of over 33,000 distinct denominations in 238 countries (Vol. I, p. 16)...
And there are other organizations which have come up with similar statistics, but in all of them the reason for so many alleged "denominations" existing is because the legal incorporation of a denomination in different countries is counted as different denominations.
- Independents: 22,000 denominations
- Protestants: 9000 denominations
- Marginals: 1600 denominations
- Orthodox: 781 denominations
- Catholics: 242 denominations
- Anglicans: 168 denominations
The 66 Books of the Canon are the only inspired ones from God, and are the final and supreme authority in all doctrines and practices. but Rome adds additional books not inspired, and also elevated church traditions of men equal to the sacred scriptures!
Considering Rome had lost the civil war to the East within the Roman Empire and would not have had much clout in the 4th century including within the State religion.None of them existed until much later in church History, so there was NO Church of Rome back in bible times!
We Baptists see Rome as adding those books due to the fact that most of their dogmas and doctrines cannot be confirmed in the 66 canon books of scriptures!Good day,
That happened quite late for the Roman Church, they have the right to do it IMHO they were wrong and unhistorical in doing so...but to err is human.
Based on a time-honoured tradition, the Councils of Florence in 1442 and Trent in 1564 resolved for Catholics any doubts and uncertainties. Their list comprises 73 books, which were accepted as sacred and canonical because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, 46 for the Old Testament, 27 for the New.36 In this way the Catholic Church received its definitive canon. To determine this canon, it based itself on the Church's constant usage. In adopting this canon, which is larger than the Hebrew, it has preserved an authentic memory of Christian origins, since, as we have seen, the more restricted Hebrew canon is later than the formation of the New Testament.
The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible
In Him,
Bill
Wait a minute. The RCC did not add those books. They were included with the others back in the fourth century AD, but only provisionally.We Baptists see Rome as adding those books due to the fact that most of their dogmas and doctrines cannot be confirmed in the 66 canon books of scriptures!
We Baptists see Rome as adding those books due to the fact that most of their dogmas and doctrines cannot be confirmed in the 66 canon books of scriptures!
Good Day, YeshuaFan
I think it is a mistake to assume that the Roman Church along with it's members are in any way concerned about how/if their dogmas or doctrines align with Scripture.
To the extent that the Catholic and Orthodox churches believe that Sacred Tradition also defines doctrine, that would be so.
That's all I see in the two quotes you gave us, not a rejection of the authority of Scripture.
The Apostles used the Septuagint on their missionary journeys. So I would say using the Bible started there.You speak of "the book," I take it you mean the bible, yes? If so, and since this is a thread for non-Protestants to ask Protestants (Just as well include non-denominational) questions, I have a few more. Is it your belief and understanding, that from the very start of Christianity, it was the practice of believers to depend on the Bible alone as the one authoritative source of doctrine? If you answer yes to this question, I'd like to follow up with 2/3 more.
1. Where did the teaching come from of relying on the Bible alone?
2. Can you show me when it started?
3. Did the first-century Christians bring their Bibles with them to church?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?