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.
We either stand with the decisions of the Church Universal made by the councils in antiquity...or we're refuting much of what Christianity is all about, not just this particular issue.
Sola Scriptura is a protestant tradition made from historical necessity. The Roman Catholic Church was teaching and doing so much nonsense in medieval era that Sola Scriptura was the best treatment at the time.
I was not speaking of tradition.
You might say that to believe in Sola Scriptura is a "protestant tradition," but if you do, you're not speaking of Tradition, i.e. Sacred Tradition, by which some churches determine essential doctrine.Myst33 said:
The primary issue with that is the declaration of "Sola Scriptura" also included a re-evaluation of what made up Scripture and the movement of several books that have a history of inclusion to an appendix(and later removal when it became too costly to print the appendix).
No, it's the council's decision that is what is being adhered to by us, by the churches since antiquity. For example, the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed is widely accepted as a correct or sufficient statement of the Christian faith (and by this forum, too) but the Creed itself cites Scripture as it's source and never mentions "Tradition."
There's no 'issue' with that. The books which both Protestants and Catholics removed or altered in the 16th century had only been included provisionally by the councils when the canon of the Bible was determined in the 4th century. That inclusion was made because there was no agreement at the time, nor had there EVER been such, on whether these were inspired or not. Everything about them suggests that they are not.
Since Scripture isn't defined, except by looking at church history(and even there it requires debate) it is encumbent that some kind of tradition establish the bounds of Scripture. Otherwise we'll have people calling the acts of peter, the apocalypse of paul, the infancy gospel of thomas, the gospel according to Mary, etc be tossed into the mix and people claiming it is all Scripture. In fact, the New Testament is essentially nothing more than apostolic tradition codified and canonized.
Not at all. Why would you think that?
There ARE such people. According to what I'm reading from you, all these works and many more like them, which had their followers in the early days of the church, ought to have been included since, well, the acceptance of them was a matter of tradition. The fact that they were inconsistent with other Bible books or were of dubious origin...none of that would have mattered. "Tradition" would have made them Bible books.
It came later. I have read many reformation writings and they quote today's deuterocanonical books as Scripture and do not make any distinction.
Oh? Where is the inspired index handed down from God?
These books are excluded because we can look to history and see the early canons rejected them. Tradition is nothing more than the consensus of the early church and council decisions.
Clearly identifying when the reformation began is certainly a question worth exploring, but typically the reformation refers specifically to the magisterial reformers which began with Luther. The Hussites and such are typically considered proto-reformers.
