Sola Scriptura

[steve_bakr]

I see much wisdom in understanding that this was a decision made in concert with the Holy Spirit, and just leaving it at that.

I can understand that for some Christians, looking into the history of how the Bible came to be canonized through Holy Tradition and Church authority may seem to be a threat to their faith, but a thread like this might invariably open the issue. But once again, this type of inquiry is not the same as questioning the validity of the Bible. It is simply a matter of umnderstanding by what process the Bible came to be as it is today.

 

[steve_bakr]

And the church bore witness that the books they held were scripture

Exactly.

 

[Albion]

Exactly.

Except of course that that church was the so-called Undivided Church of the first millennium.

It gives a lift to some people to think "that was us," but a number of today's different churches/denominations/communions can and do claim descent from it.

 

[Montalban]

What? So it must be false?

No. Circular logic doesn't apply either way.

Or is it true because the "right people" said it is?

Well 'right' was Paul who handed his Epistles over and thus the witness for those Epistles.

Whether they are 'true' in their message is one thing, but they are truly Paul's messages because the churches bore witness to this.

Is the Holy Spirit not the right person to claim the authenticity of the books He wrote through inspired men?

How did the Holy Spirit do this?


Just imagine you lived back then. There's more than a dozen books that existed re: Christianity. You can see some of them at

www.earlychristianwritings.com

The church gathers together and looks at what books to put in the bible. They do so. EVEN IF the Holy Spirit worked through them, or not - perhaps you think the HS just handed the church a completed bible you'd still be faced with the question "How do I know that these books that the church presented me as being genuine are in fact genuine" - unless you accepted the church as genuine.

You're 2,000 years (or so) removed from the process, and devoid of that church so I'd still like to know how you know the bible is genuine.

I'm not devoid of that church, being part of it.

 

[steve_bakr]

Except of course that that church was the so-called Undivided Church of the first millennium.

It gives a lift to some people to think "that was us," but a number of today's different churches/denominations/communions can and do claim descent from it.

It is true that several communions claim apostolic succession, partly because one Bishop may have left the Church in order to grant apostolic succession to a breakaway communion. But I think the communions which have the most valid claims to true apostolic succession are the RCC and EOC.

 

[Albion]

It is true that several communions claim apostolic succession, partly because one Bishop may have left the Church in order to grant apostolic succession to a breakaway communion. But I think the communions which have the most valid claims to true apostolic succession are the RCC and EOC.

We were not even talking about Apostolic Succession there, steve.

BTW, you are always careful to include the EO when making claims for the RCC, yet the claim being made is often singular--the church that bore witness to the canonization.... or the church that Christ founded....

It can't really be the 'one and only' but also part of a group. The group idea is correct, other than for which denominations are included.

 

[steve_bakr]

We were not even talking about Apostolic Succession there, steve.

And other communions de-emphasize apostolic succession because they claim to have leapt backwards from the continuity of the Church to the original 1st Century Church. Be that as it may, the Nicene Creed says, "I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church."

 

[daydreamergurl15]

No. Circular logic doesn't apply either way.

Well 'right' was Paul who handed his Epistles over and thus the witness for those Epistles.

Whether they are 'true' in their message is one thing, but they are truly Paul's messages because the churches bore witness to this.


How did the Holy Spirit do this?


Just imagine you lived back then. There's more than a dozen books that existed re: Christianity. You can see some of them at

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

The church gathers together and looks at what books to put in the bible. They do so. EVEN IF the Holy Spirit worked through them, or not - perhaps you think the HS just handed the church a completed bible you'd still be faced with the question "How do I know that these books that the church presented me as being genuine are in fact genuine" - unless you accepted the church as genuine.

You're 2,000 years (or so) removed from the process, and devoid of that church so I'd still like to know how you know the bible is genuine.

I'm not devoid of that church, being part of it.

You make it sound like these men MADE the books to be inspired. NO! These books were ALREADY WRITTEN, already INSPIRED before these men bound them. And by the way, the Jews bound the Old Testament before the council did, does that mean they have authority? Protestants goes with the Jews OT because they were given the oracles of God. But the binding of them by the Jews doesn't make it any more or less inspiring, and seeing as we came up with the same books, you would think the Holy Spirit was working through these men to say what is and isn't inspired. And yeah, these books were handed down, how else do you think we have them to bind them? As for the false ones, the Apostles reminded them of the very thing and we keep forgetting that people has the gift of the Holy Spirit.

And I am part of the church because the church is the body of believers. No where in scripture does it say that the CHURCH are the members of the Catholic faith, it said the church is the body of believers.

I always accept the church as genuine but the genuineness of the church deals with the death of Christ on the cross not making the book inspired.

Being 2000 years removed from the church means nothing because those in council were 314 years removed from it, and yet Scripture still speaks to us today. When I read the Scriptures, I'm not reading what someone wrote in 314 AD, I'm reading the writings that were written at the time of the events taking place.

 

[Albion]

And other communions de-emphasize apostolic succession because they claim to have leapt backwards from the continuity of the Church to the original 1st Century Church. Be that as it may, the Nicene Creed says, "I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church."

Some do, some don't. The Anglican church, the oldest church in the Gentile world, certainly traces its lineage to the Apostles, just as yours does. And so do the Armenians, Old Catholics, and Oriental Orthodox, which is so say nothing of those other churches that do not say that they leaped back but claim a continuous existence.

 

[Montalban]

Except of course that that church was the so-called Undivided Church of the first millennium.

How does that support sola scriptura?

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=daydreamergurl15;You make it sound like these men MADE the books to be inspired. NO! These books were ALREADY WRITTEN, already INSPIRED before these men bound them. And by the way, the Jews bound the Old Testament before the council did, does that mean they have authority? Protestants goes with the Jews OT because they were given the oracles of God. But the binding of them by the Jews doesn't make it any more or less inspiring, and seeing as we came up with the same books, you would think the Holy Spirit was working through these men to say what is and isn't inspired. And yeah, these books were handed down, how else do you think we have them to bind them? As for the false ones, the Apostles reminded them of the very thing and we keep forgetting that people has the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Oh, yeah. Absolutely. & more, it's as if there weren't collections of epistles & gospels around previous to the council. Also, don't forget to ignore the fact that the EO & RVVV have diifferent collections (canons), & that what is supposed to be a monolith (orthodoxy) was a scismatic mess way before anyone Protested for the sake of Reform.

And I am part of the church because the church is the body of believers. No where in scripture does it say that the CHURCH are the members of the Catholic faith, it said the church is the body of believers.

Sola Fidelis

Being 2000 years removed from the church means nothing because those in council were 314 years removed from it, and yet Scripture still speaks to us today. When I read the Scriptures, I'm not reading what someone wrote in 314 AD, I'm reading the writings that were written at the time of the events taking place.

Amen. Not some guy's opinion a hundred years later.

 

[steve_bakr]

You make it sound like these men MADE the books to be inspired. NO! These books were ALREADY WRITTEN, already INSPIRED before these men bound them. And by the way, the Jews bound the Old Testament before the council did, does that mean they have authority? Protestants goes with the Jews OT because they were given the oracles of God. But the binding of them by the Jews doesn't make it any more or less inspiring, and seeing as we came up with the same books, you would think the Holy Spirit was working through these men to say what is and isn't inspired. And yeah, these books were handed down, how else do you think we have them to bind them? As for the false ones, the Apostles reminded them of the very thing and we keep forgetting that people has the gift of the Holy Spirit.

And I am part of the church because the church is the body of believers. No where in scripture does it say that the CHURCH are the members of the Catholic faith, it said the church is the body of believers.

I always accept the church as genuine but the genuineness of the truth deals with the death of Christ on the cross not making the book inspired.

Being 2000 years removed from the church means nothing because those in council were 314 years removed from it, and yet Scripture still speaks to us today. When I read the Scriptures, I'm not reading what someone wrote in 314 AD, I'm reading the writings that were written at the time of the events taking place.

He didn't say that the Church MADE the books inspired, he said that the Church BORE WITNESS to their inspiration. The Church canonized the Bible you have today, except for some writings that Protestants don't include in their Bibles.

 

[Rick Otto]

Tgr RCC canonized the Bible IT has, not the Bible WE have.
You make it sound like the RCC's canon is the only one ever produced.
Is that what you think?

 

[steve_bakr]

Tgr RCC canonized the Bible IT has, not the Bible WE have.
You make it sound like the RCC's canon is the only one ever produced.
Is that what you think?

The only difference between the Roman Catholic canon and your canon is that you have fewer books in the Old Testament and your book of Daniel is shorter. Otherwise, it is the same, and the New Testament canons are identical. And, yes, the Catholic Church canonized the Christian Scriptures.

 

[Rick Otto]

Which Catholic Church? Which Scriptures?
Your presentation of unity & authority is full of holes.

 

[steve_bakr]

Which Catholic Church? Which Scriptures?
Your presentation of unity & authority is full of holes.

Do you not have the exact same New Testament as the Catholic Church?

 

[Rick Otto]

What is "The Catholic Church"?
What books are in it's N. T.?
What I have is everything available to me to discern for myself
& no self-appointed pontiff to tell me what to think.

 

[Standing Up]

He didn't say that the Church MADE the books inspired, he said that the Church BORE WITNESS to their inspiration. The Church canonized the Bible you have today, except for some writings that Protestants don't include in their Bibles.

Presumably we believers still bear witness to their inspiration, though some unfortunately water it down with comparison to contradictory tradition and fallible councils.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Do you not have the exact same New Testament as the Catholic Church?

Yes, since the 16th century anyway, the RC has the same NT as do Protestants. Good.


Let's see if we can return to the issue of this thead?




.

 

[Standing Up]

I can understand that for some Christians, looking into the history of how the Bible came to be canonized through Holy Tradition and Church authority may seem to be a threat to their faith, but a thread like this might invariably open the issue. But once again, this type of inquiry is not the same as questioning the validity of the Bible. It is simply a matter of umnderstanding by what process the Bible came to be as it is today.

Tradition and Church contradict each other. EO, OO, RC, and P all have different OT.

Can they at least admit to this and what it means?