Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

[LittleLambofJesus]

I think she's asking how or why do you accept the first 2 letters of Peter as authentic and not any of the other works attributed to him - there's quite a few of them; also, 2 Peter is not considered Petrine by some theologians.

Well, that is their loss me thinks

The unbeliving apostate Jews and Muslims do not view Paul's Epistles as "Pauline" for that matter

http://www.christianforums.com/t4410009-7/#post29865856
Can Muhammad and Paul be buddies

 

[yedida]

Well, that is their loss me thinks

The unbeliving apostate Jews and Muslims do not view Paul's Epistles as "Pauline" for that matter

http://www.christianforums.com/t4410009-7/#post29865856
Can Muhammad and Paul be buddies

I would have preferred more Peter than Paul, personally.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I would have preferred more Peter than Paul, personally.

How come

http://www.christianforums.com/t6958045-5/#post51146994
Does the Roman Church focus on Peter too much [Thread moved]

 

[yedida]

How come

http://www.christianforums.com/t6958045-5/#post51146994
Does the Roman Church focus on Peter too much [Thread moved]

Let's just say I'm not a big fan of Paul.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Let's just say I'm not a big fan of Paul.

I understand

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all the letters speaking in them about these-things in which is difficult-to-understand
who-any which the un-learned and un-steadfast are wresting/twisting,
as also the rests of Writings, toward the own of them destruction/apwleian <684>

http://www.christianforums.com/t7529920-34/#post56601136
Problems with Paul

 

[yedida]

I understand

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all the letters speaking in them about these-things in which is difficult-to-understand
who-any which the un-learned and un-steadfast are wresting/twisting,
as also the rests of Writings, toward the own of them destruction/apwleian <684>

http://www.christianforums.com/t7529920-34/#post56601136
Problems with Paul

Nothing to do with difficulty understanding. it would be easier if that were the case.

 

[MrPolo]

Some of the books of the apocrypha were understood as books that were profitable to read but not canon.

Understood as such by the same unidentifiable Christians no doubt....

 

[Hentenza]

Understood as such by the same unidentifiable Christians no doubt....

Huh? The Christian ARE identifiable but are irrelevant. Why are you making me repeat myself?

 

[yedida]

I understand

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all the letters speaking in them about these-things in which is difficult-to-understand
who-any which the un-learned and un-steadfast are wresting/twisting,
as also the rests of Writings, toward the own of them destruction/apwleian <684>

http://www.christianforums.com/t7529920-34/#post56601136
Problems with Paul

Regarding that thread, why'd it get closed? I never saw it, and it's not that old.

 

[MrPolo]

Huh? The Christian ARE identifiable but are irrelevant. Why are you making me repeat myself?

Because you can't assert that the early Church received from God your 66-book canon and rejected the so-called apocryphal books in the Catholic canon---while simultaneously remaining unable to identify any Christian person(s) in the early Church whom you trust that make that claim. You must have some reason for making your assertion besides the fact that the Bible on your shelf happens to have 66 books.

In fact---I claim the early Church accepted the book of Cocopuffs and the book of Han Solo. I will not identify anyone in the early Church to support my claim. Names are irrelevant.

In my humble opinion, all you are doing is demonstrating one of the most obvious reasons that a person should never choose any strain of sola scriptura Protestantism.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Because you can't assert that the early Church received from God your 66-book canon and rejected the so-called apocryphal books in the Catholic canon---while simultaneously remaining unable to identify any Christian person(s) in the early Church whom you trust that make that claim. You must have some reason for making your assertion besides the fact that the Bible on your shelf happens to have 66 books.

In fact---I claim the early Church accepted the book of Cocopuffs and the book of Han Solo. I will not identify anyone in the early Church to support my claim. Names are irrelevant.

In my humble opinion, all you are doing is demonstrating one of the most obvious reasons that a person should never choose any strain of sola scriptura Protestantism.

Lost me....

Sola Scriptura does not teach that there are 66 or 72 or 84 or 101 books in the Bible - it doesn't teach anything. So, I'm just at a loss to know what you are talking about, my friend and unseparated equal brother.


http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/




.

 

[Montalban]

Have you read the history of the canon? Many books that we have were originally, prior to the decision, were not part of the "common" circulation but became part of the canon. Many books that were part of the "common" circulation were ignored.

So you're saying the church had one collection, changed to another, then another, and whatever they ended up deciding with, you just accept?

Sadly, it doesn't look like what God told Moses was not adhered to in the decisions, i.e. "do not add to this word," "do not diminish this word," and it looks like they never put forth the test of who/what is a true or false prophet of God.

If that were so, then the Bible would be the first five books of the OT, only

The test I apply is by Jesus' own words and what God said through Moses. Everything else must fall in line with those two. If something doesn't seem to jive with what Jesus and/or Moses said, then there must be at least 2 other "witnesses" to the saying (and that means 2 other authors must verify the passage in question - and that is scriptural).
Just my 2cents.

That's circular logic given that you only know Jesus' own words from the Bible!

 

[Hentenza]

In fact---I claim the early Church accepted the book of Cocopuffs and the book of Han Solo..

I'm not surprised.

 

[Montalban]

No, is God. He is perfectly capable to preserving His revelation.

begs the question of how you know what his collection is.

But did God sit down with men and say "Yes, pick that book" ?

No, God is responsible. The church merely discovered what God had already decreed.

No. We know that they rejected books based on churches never having heard of them before.

Your theory is that God mystically automated the church (which may have already been apostate then) into acting a particular way in preserving Protestant bible doctrine and then just as mysteriously abandoning the church awaiting for the revealing of this truth in 1515 by Luther.

 

[yedida]

So you're saying the church had one collection, changed to another, then another, and whatever they ended up deciding with, you just accept?


If that were so, then the Bible would be the first five books of the OT, only


That's circular logic given that you only know Jesus' own words from the Bible!

Point 1 - yes, things were dropped, added. I don't just accept it, but they are in my bible nonetheless.

Point 2 - no, I was talking about the NT books. The Hebrew canon did use God's word to make their decisions.

Point 3 - no circular talk. There's only 1 person I don't fully trust.

 

[Hentenza]

Your theory is that God mystically automated the church (which may have already been apostate then) into acting a particular way in preserving Protestant bible doctrine and then just as mysteriously abandoning the church awaiting for the revealing of this truth in 1515 by Luther.

Automated the church? lol

No that is not my "theory". My belief is that God decreed His written revelation and maintained it. The church merely discovered what had already been decreed.

BTW- God uses even the apostate for His will. See Nebuchadnezzar as an example.

ETA- Do you think that God automated the bible writers? How about all the prophets?

 

[sunlover1]

Nothing to do with difficulty understanding. it would be easier if that were the case.

What don't you like about Paul?
The things he said ?

 

[Montalban]

Some of the books of the apocrypha were understood as books that were profitable to read but not canon. It wasn't until your denomination declared them canonical in the counter reformation and non ecumenical council of Trent that they were officially made part of your canon. Do you deny this?

Understood by individuals? Or by the church?

However you missed his point in that even today there's no fixed canon in some churches.

You just adhere to the one that Luther arbitrarily picked

Again, the names are irrelevant. We all know the earthly history. Naming them only proves that God used them for His purpose not that they independently approved God's purpose. You are chasing a rabbit trail here.

Actually you are by making a claim and having no way of showing it is true other than 'we all know it'

 

[Hentenza]

You just adhere to the one that Luther arbitrarily picked

No, I read the bible that God picked. After all, God is omniscient.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I read the bible that God picked.

What a coincidence, so do I.