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.
Absolutely not! If so, they wouldn't have met (council). They wouldn't have considered tradition (Moses). They wouldn't have considered their experience (fruit-signs/wonders). But ultimately they wouldn't have consulted scripture. IF what you say was true. It wasn't. They stood on scripture. They said, it is written ... just like Jesus. Once they knew what had been foretold and understood it with the Spirit's help, the debate was over.
Moses went to the elders. Elijah went to the prophets of Baal. The leaders met, but the ultimate leader was the Word/scripture. From there they instruct and the "followers" are to learn. Paul uses this formula 2x in Corinthians (received/delivered and delivered/received).
The church leaders can meet in council all they want, but unless their ultimate authority is scripture, it is to no avail.
That makes no sense.
Scripture cannot make decisions. So you can see how silly that sounds to say scripture is the authority.
Apostolicity was thus the test for canonicity.
How do we know which books belong in the Bible? The early Church's answer was: Those books which are apostolic belong in the canon of scriptureJosiah said:Let's say you get pulled over by a policeman in the city of Los Angeles, CA, USA on December 17, 2008. He got you on his radar going 70 MPH. As he pulls you over, he points to a big white sign with black letters saying, "MAX 45 MPH." I can just hear you say, "But officier, how do we know what the Law is? How do we know if this sign applies or some sign that might be errected here in the year 2345 AD or was here in the year 1800 BC?" Friend, I think there's a fundamental point you are missing: The Rule of Law means we embrace the Law that IS - there and then. The same is true for the Rule of Scripture . Now, the Rule of Law doesn't define what the law is, it embraces the law. The Rule of Scripture doesn't define what the Scirpture is, it embraces it. Now, again, IF you want to argue that the Book of Mormon should be regarded as a part of the biblical canon or IF you want to argue that it should be a law that you may drive as fast as you want, then that's another subject for another day and thread. The fact is: The embrace of the NT is one of the oldest, strongest and most ecumenical points of consensus in all of Christianity - and you know that. I think you also know that the Rule of Scirpture doesn't define Scripture anymore than the Rule of Law defines the law.
If a book had been handed down by the apostles as scripture (like the books of the Old Testament) of if it was written by one of the apostles or their associates (like the books of the New Testament), it belonged in the Bible. Apostolicity was thus the test for canonicity.
Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes:
But how could one know which books were apostolic? Certainly not by a book's claim to be apostolic, since there were many false gospels and epistles circulating under the names of apostles. Neither did the Holy Spirit promise a revelation to each individual Christian of what books belonged in the Bible.
"Unless a book could be shown to come from the pen of an apostle, or at least to have the authority of an apostle behind it, it was peremptorily rejected, however edifying or popular with the faithful it might be" <(Early Christian Doctrines,> 60).
That makes no sense.
Scripture cannot make decisions. Especially when it is regarding scripture. So you can see how silly that sounds to say scripture is the authority.
I once looked at this site awhile back concerning the Great Flood and it appears they also have a rather good article on the history of the Bible....Interesting, since NONE of the following were written by an Apostle:......
........And the following books never state the author, so we don't know that they were written by an Apostle:
Reality check: We don't know why/how the canoncial "list" developed. But we DO know this: NO DENOMINATION (including the RCC) had a thing to do with it.
The term "Solo Scriptura" was brought up on another thread in conjunction with "Sola Scriptura".
My own definition and view of "Solo" implies Scripture only and not going outside of what is Written while "Sola" means subscribing to both what has been Written and the Oral "traditions" of the ECFs and others that claim they were orally taught by the Apostles themselves.
So I would like to here from other Christians of all denominations on how they view the difference and I would like to quote a verse from Paul:
1 Corinthians 4:6 These-things, yet brethren, I after-figure into myself and Apollos thru/because-of ye, that in us ye may be learning the no above that which hath been Written/gegraptai <1125> (5769), that no one over the one ye may be puffed up against the other.
Thank you for your input jsthe fact that youre asking us (looking to an authority other than Scripture...) definitively proves that it is NOT Scriptural.
God's artistic touch...I like that.its actually symbolic of gods artist touch...the church which helped establish the scriptures is now in need of the scriptures to reestablish itself
you may call this circular but guess what? infinite is circular
God's artistic touch...I like that.
Circular but deeper with each truth brought forth.
umhn, traditions symbolized what scripture says. And what satisfied the minds of even a generation or two ago aren't cutting it in anymore. People are actively seeking and that means tracing the tradition to the source.
By golly I think $Abel might be unto something in dat thar post
And you know that 2 Timothy is Scripture just how?
peace,
Anglian
And who first took the decision to include it in the canon of scripture. If you think it was God, provide biblical proof.
peace,
Anglian
Dear LLOJ,
For me, the fact that Scripture nowhere states what should be in it speaks against being able to rely on it alone. If it cannot tell us what it should be, I'm uncertain how it, by itself, can tell us everything else.
peace,
Anglian
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?