Sola Scriptura

Rick Otto said:

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.

Click to expand...

You don't have to be so militant. Your NT is the exact same one that was canonized by the Catholic Church. You weren't aware of that? The Pope is not self-appointed. But remember Luther said that when people interpret the Bible on their own it makes everyone a pope. I prefer to have just one.

steve_bakr said:

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

Click to expand...

No. Different groups had differnt NT canons. John of Damasus thought the didache scripture as late as 700ad. C100-300 some thought Clement of ROme's epistle scripture.

Standing Up said:

No. Different groups had differnt NT canons. John of Damasus thought the didache scripture as late as 700ad. C100-300 some thought Clement of ROme's epistle scripture.

Click to expand...

That's fine, but they were not canonized by the council of bishops.

steve_bakr said:

the Catholic Church canonized the Christian Scriptures.

Click to expand...

... at the Council of Trent, a few years AFTER the death of Luther. And only, exclusively, solely for the RC Denomination alone.


... the EOC did similarly (but a different canon) about a century later.


Yes, there is a nearly 100% consensus among all Christians and all Christian denominations on 66 books (the content thereof). There's never been any ecumenical Council on this, but it is an embracement by historic, ecumenical, Christian consensus. Yes - there are EXTRA, disputed, irrelev ant books that don't have such consensus. The OOC has several different sets of canons, the EOC has yet another since the 17th century, the RCC yet another unique set since the 16th century, the RCC had the Book of Leodiceans in the NT for 1000 years but doesn't any now, the LDS has 3 extra books in its canon.


None of this has anything to do with the topic before us. Nothing. Employing Scripture as the norma normans in the evaluation of disputed dogmas among us doesn't say what is and is not Scripture, a practice has to do with action, not teachings. The Rule of Scripture (sola scriptura) doesn't declare what is and is not Scripture anymore than the Rule of Law says what is and is not the law. Let's see if we can return to the issue of this thread and stop this hijacking diversion?








.

Standing Up said:

No. Different groups had differnt NT canons. John of Damasus thought the didache scripture as late as 700ad. C100-300 some thought Clement of ROme's epistle scripture.

Click to expand...

Yes, you do have the exact same NT canon as the Catholic Church.

steve_bakr said:

That's fine, but they were not canonized by the council of bishops.

Click to expand...

Trent wasn't a world-wide council. C'mon, its still why "the Church" contradicts the rest of "the Church".

steve_bakr said:

Yes, you do have the exact same NT canon as the Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

Why? When? How did "the Church" bring it about? "The Church" couldn't agree and still doesn't on what is scripture.

PS. I know why I agree 66 books are scripture and none others.

Standing Up said:

Why? When? How did "the Church" bring it about? "The Church" couldn't agree and still doesn't on what is scripture.

Click to expand...

How so? Every Catholic Bible is the same, and its NT is the same as yours.

.

Josiah, to accept SS as a valid method would usurp their claim to authoriy over what scripture means.

steve_bakr said:

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.

Click to expand...

It is not a threat to my faith to understand that the Holy Spirit was the one prayed to for guidance, and the one who gave guidance.

And I do have a fairly good understanding of the process, where a geographically diverse group of Christians came together and came to a more or less better understanding of which spiritual texts were universally used throughout of the various Christian eccessiastical traditions, and more or less agreed that there was assurance that these books could be deemed to be God-breathed.
It is not a threat to my faith at all actually, that OO agreed to Enoch, but others did not, that the eastern and western traditions differed somewhat as well. For the most part it was not a controversial decision, because everybody agreed that scripture was what they were using as scripture already and had been from a very early date. That was the main basis for their agreement in the first place. They agree to use what they were already using, so there was not much of a compromise!
There were a few outliers of course, a few books included that some had doubts about, a few rejected that some considered to be Scripture, but authentically apostolic, universally used, and approved by the guidance of prayer and the Holy Spirit were the criterion.

This is not a threat to my faith at all. I don't know why you would think that it might be. The post I was commenting on noted how his brethren were opening up a can of worms by over-arguing the point and casting doubt on the authenticity of Scripture itself through their incessant obsession over this side issue.
As if one could not choose between the Koran and Scripture for example, without resorting to circular reasoning!

But of course it will always be raised in these threads, precisely because it is a side issue. When people do not have enough ammunition to deal with the actual issue of sola scriptura directly, the easiest thing to do is to turn the focus on something else.

Protestantism in general, by the way,(not that I am Protestant personally) did not reject the Church of 250 AD. It was the church of 1500 AD that was being protested and being called to reform to a faith that more closely resembled 100 AD and the more authentic faith of the apostles.

It is not Christianity as a whole that is being spurned here, or even the idea of a church making decision on scripture that is being challenged, but a church that makes decisions without regard to Scripture that is being challenged.

The more that you delve on the side issue, the more that it is understood with anyone with the eyes to see and the ears to hear that when it comes to sola scriptura, those who reject it have no good reason that they know of why they do so. Lamentably, they sometimes even start questioning the authenticity of Scripture itself as a defense.

.


IF the RC Denomination determined in the late 16th Century what is and is not Scripture in some manner of any relevance outside of itself, then why does NO ONE agree with it in this matter? If it's the leader, why are there no followers? It now agrees with NONE. It has a unity of NONE on this issue.


Could we stop this hijack and return to the issue? If you want to start a thread on why the RC Denomination agrees with NONE on what is and is not Scripture, start a thread on that.





.

steve_bakr said:

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 understanding by what process the Bible came to be as it is today.

Click to expand...

They reject the church that caused the Bible

CaliforniaJosiah said:

.


IF the RC Denomination determined in the late 16th Century what is and is not Scripture in some manner of any relevance outside of itself, then why does NO ONE agree with it in this matter? If it's the leader, why are there no followers? It now agrees with NONE. It has a unity of NONE on this issue.


Could we stop this hijack and return to the issue? If you want to start a thread on why the RC Denomination agrees with NONE on what is and is not Scripture, start a thread on that.





.

Click to expand...

Why are you happy with the Lutheran church doing just that (rejecting many OT books) ?

steve_bakr said:

That's fine, but they were not canonized by the council of bishops.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, it still doesn't solve any issue for sola scripturists

Montalban said:

They reject the church that caused the Bible

Click to expand...

Which church? Which bible? EO or RC or OO or P each with different OT.

There was only one church, that I'm aware of then.

The problem of 'which church' doesn't help Protestants at all.

If they don't know which church gave them the bible then all they have for proof of the bible is circular logic; that however it came to them it just is, because it is.

Even having different OT's doesn't help

It'd be a bit like kids waking up and finding Christmas presents and not knowing how they got them.

"Oh, look! A completed bible! I wonder where it came from?"

Standing Up said:

Which church? Which bible? EO or RC or OO or P each with different OT.

Click to expand...

Apparently it is all of them, considering some of the "I am neither Protestant or Catholic, and I merely repeat what the Bible plainly says" lonewolf rhetoric that we have seen in multiple threads when the subject of the canon and interpretation comes up.