Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

[Montalban]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

Where's it show them using only the Bible to attest to the authority of the Bible?

"A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, c. 160"
Ibid.

That is Irenaus is asserting it; that they be included. Not the gospels themselves. Unless you're reading something else

 

[OpenDoor]

Where's it show them using only the Bible to attest to the authority of the Bible?

What?

edit: I think we are talking about two different things.

 

[Montalban]

What?

edit: I think we are talking about two different things.

What are you talking about - with regards the ECFs?

 

[OpenDoor]

What are you talking about - with regards the ECFs?

That the ECFs recognized what was scripture and what was not.

(this was a funny conversation )

 

[Ortho_Cat]

That the ECFs recognized what was scripture and what was not.

(this was a funny conversation )

why did some of them give different lists of inspired books then?

 

[OpenDoor]

why did some of them give different lists of inspired books then?

People make mistakes.

The Christian faith is not just a one person faith the church has many parts.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

People make mistakes.

The Christian faith is not just a one person faith the church has many parts.

I agree! But apparently it was not so easy to distinguish scripture from non-scripture, as some would like to believe...

 

[OpenDoor]

I agree! But apparently it was not so easy to distinguish scripture from non-scripture, as some would like to believe...

If I may ask you. I also believe that God knows how to communicate to His people, and that His people can recognize what is from God and what is not. Do you agree?

 

[Montalban]

If I may ask you. I also believe that God knows how to communicate to His people, and that His people can recognize what is from God and what is not. Do you agree?

You're still left with circular logic to guess which particular time the church happened to get it right!

Also your statement about the ECFs is so vague I can't see what ECFs you think are saying whatever it is you're trying to say

 

[OpenDoor]

You're still left with circular logic to guess which particular time the church happened to get it right!

Also your statement about the ECFs is so vague I can't see what ECFs you think are saying whatever it is you're trying to say

I believe the 27 books of the NT are inspired by God does that help?

EDIT: I would also like to hear the EO perspective on when, "the church happened to get it right".

 

[Montalban]

I believe the 27 books of the NT are inspired by God does that help?

Not at all. I'm not that into 'just-so' statements.

So you believe it's so, because you do.

EDIT: I would also like to hear the EO perspective on when, "the church happened to get it right".

It must have, as it picked those books!

I thought you said the ECFs agreed.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

If I may ask you. I also believe that God knows how to communicate to His people, and that His people can recognize what is from God and what is not. Do you agree?

That almost sounds like a pre-destination philosophy. I don't agree with that. I believe that God calls everyone. Some respond, some don't. Not everyone, no matter how sincere they are, is able to distinguish authentic scripture from non. Also, some people just don't have the intellectual capability to do so, or may be confused. I don't think this means that they are not of God. I think discerning scripture is a difficult process, since some of the church fathers, who were very intelligent adn discerning men, were not able to come up with the same voice regarding inspired scripture until several hundred years after they were penned.

 

[OpenDoor]

It must have, as it picked those books!

I thought you said the ECFs agreed.

You are loosing me M.ban...

 

[OpenDoor]

That almost sounds like a pre-destination philosophy. I don't agree with that. I believe that God calls everyone. Some respond, some don't. Not everyone, no matter how sincere they are, is able to distinguish authentic scripture from non. Also, some people just don't have the intellectual capability to do so, or may be confused. I don't think this means that they are not of God. I think discerning scripture is a difficult process, since some of the church fathers, who were very intelligent adn discerning men, were not able to come up with the same voice regarding inspired scripture until several hundred years after they were penned.

Interesting view.

 

[MrPolo]

People make mistakes.

The Christian faith is not just a one person faith the church has many parts.

You have provided absolutely no evidence or rationale why we should believe the early Church correctly identified the 66-book-only canon that you personally accept. Our only conclusion is to assume you have no evidence, and that you cannot get around the fact that you were simply given that particular Bible by modern Christians, and you have taken for granted where they got it.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I believe the 27 books of the NT are inspired by God does that help?

What we are trying to get to the core of is exactly why sola-scripturists believe that the 27 books of the NT are inspired.

Did you go through all the competing gospels/letters that existed during the first 5 centuries and eliminate them one by one just to make sure? Have you read any of the the other books that were rejected by the Church? Maybe the Church got it wrong. Maybe there was a wide-spread conspiricary to cover up the true message of Christ by the church. If they were corrupt in some areas, why couldn't they have failed you in canonizing scripture as well? Perhaps there is authentic scripture that once existed, but has been burned by the church so that no record longer exists. You may never know. Maybe God sent another prophet (joseph smith)? because the church got corrupted? At the end of the day,if you want to be a bible believing Christian, you have to trust the churches decision (that is, have faith in the church) that they kept the right books, and rejected the wrong books, even if you reject some of their doctrines. And if this is so, you must ask yourself, why do I trust them with my bible, but you don't trust them with other matters of my faith.

Does this seem like an arbitrary pick and choose scenario, or is it just me?

 

[OpenDoor]

You have provided absolutely no evidence or rationale why we should believe the early Church correctly identified the 66-book-only canon that you personally accept. Our only conclusion is to assume you have no evidence, and that you cannot get around the fact that you were simply given that particular Bible by modern Christians, and you have taken for granted where they got it.

IIRC I was focusing on the 27 books of the NT. Which I thought all Christians agreed on up to today...

 

[OpenDoor]

What we are trying to get to the core of is exactly why sola-scripturists believe that the 27 books of the NT are inspired.

Did you go through all the competing gospels/letters that existed during the first 5 centuries and eliminate them one by one just to make sure? Have you read any of the the other books that were rejected by the Church? Maybe the Church got it wrong. Maybe there was a wide-spread conspiricary to cover up the true message of Christ by the church. If they were corrupt in some areas, why couldn't they have failed you in canonizing scripture as well? Perhaps there is authentic scripture that once existed, but has been burned by the church so that no record longer exists. You may never know. Maybe God sent another prophet (joseph smith)? because the church got corrupted? At the end of the day,if you want to be a bible believing Christian, you have to trust the churches decision (that is, have faith in the church) that they kept the right books, and rejected the wrong books, even if you reject some of their doctrines.

Does this seem like an arbitrary pick and choose scenario, or is it just me?

I can understand why you could see it that way. I know the faith that I believe (as the Early Christians did and as I hope future Christians do also).
TBH if I accepted Joseph Smith as a prophet then I would be a Mormon (like most Mormons are). If I accepted Mohammad as a prophet then I would be a Muslim (like most Muslims are).
However, I am not either of those religions. I believe in Jesus of Nazareth and recognizes Him as the Christ the Son of the living God.

 

[OpenDoor]

What we are trying to get to the core of is exactly why sola-scripturists believe that the 27 books of the NT are inspired.

The 27 books of the NT teach the faith that most Christians believe in... So yeah, Christians accept them.

If we were Gnostics we probably wouldn't accept them (the 27 books of the NT), or at least included other Gnostic writings.

 

[OpenDoor]

After examining some of the later post I am getting the impression that the EO/RC view themselves as having a more stable ground then the SS. I would like to hear why.

Just as a heads up I am going to use the same logic that you used on us (hope that helps)