I don't undetstand how the gospel can decide which books. What about the OT?
Nobody in any age of Bible writers - ever said "let's wait a few centuries for a Catholic church council to tell us what the Bible is".
Luke 24: 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
Not "in a few of the scriptures that they happened to have confirmed at the moment but they really weren't sure yet what "all the scriptures" even meant"
Josephus makes the point that for those Jews living at the time of Christ - the canon of scripture had been solidified and kept in the temple for over 400 years.
I believe God used the church to pick the right books as God can do with any group of Christians. It doesn't give any church authority over the Bible, but early tradition can be useful for understanding scripture.
Some think it was a decision of men, but really it was a decision of God, through the Holy Spirit.
By the time the "selecting" was started - the Christians had already been reading the Bible for centuries. No council claims that "for the first time we have a Bible with this our glorious selection" -- that never happened.
Here comes a grenade!
But a helpful conversation, I believe.
I've seen many people take issue around these forums with sola scriptura - not just Catholics, but even non-traditional Protestants (for want of a better term).
Something that I've been exploring and that has been hugely helpful is understanding that the "Word of God" is not primarily the same thing as the Bible. The Word of God is the gospel of Jesus Christ, and (of course) you find that in the Bible but difficult parts of the Bible ought to be interpreted through the gospel.
The distinction is helpful (and I would argue, true) for many reasons, but when we're dealing with sola scriptura, I want to quote an article at biblicaltraining.org that talks about Luther's understanding of the "Word of God" and how he used that understanding to form a sola-scriptura outlook, and how he defended that against critics.
"We need to recognize that the notion that the Word of God is Jesus Christ himself allowed Luther to respond to the main objections Catholics raised to his doctrine of the authority of Scripture over the Church. They argued that since it was the Church that determined which books to be included in the Canon of Scripture it was clear that the Church had authority over the Bible. Luther responded that it was neither the Church that had made the Bible nor the Bible that had made the Church, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ that had made both the Bible and the Church. Final authority rests neither in the Church nor in the Bible, but in the Gospel, in the message of Jesus Christ, who is the incarnate Word of God."
Full article (for more context and interest) here: Free Online Bible Classes | What was Martin Luther's theology of the Word of God?. It's not a long read.
Yes, sure, but Christians were also reading books that didn't make it to the Bible I believe.
That is not the fruit of Sola scriptura... that is the fruit of men and their creation of religions.. any religion.. even the RC religion.... They are full of traditions, views, ideals, standards, rituals and ceremonies that were not the intention of God.Jesus Christ taught "by their fruits shall ye know them". The fruits of Sola Scriptura have been the fragmentation of Protestantism into thousands of conflicting denominations teaching thousands of contradictory and therefore false beliefs, in direct opposition of the clearly stated will of Jesus Christ concerning His followers, which was and still is "That they all may be ONE, even as I and My Heavenly Father are ONE. Total doctrinal chaos in just a few hundred years.
Catholicism is fragmented as well, let's not pretend the Pope has unified all corners of the Roman Communion, and Francis is a very divisive figure.Jesus Christ taught "by their fruits shall ye know them". The fruits of Sola Scriptura have been the fragmentation of Protestantism into thousands of conflicting denominations teaching thousands of contradictory and therefore false beliefs, in direct opposition of the clearly stated will of Jesus Christ concerning His followers, which was and still is "That they all may be ONE, even as I and My Heavenly Father are ONE. Total doctrinal chaos in just a few hundred years.
The Anglican Church in North America being one.That's right, JM, and there are also all the other Catholic denominations to consider.
If our friend wants to indict all Protestants with one sweep of the pen, we have to also admit that there are many different Catholic churches, too.
Here comes a grenade!
But a helpful conversation, I believe.
I've seen many people take issue around these forums with sola scriptura - not just Catholics, but even non-traditional Protestants (for want of a better term).
Something that I've been exploring and that has been hugely helpful is understanding that the "Word of God" is not primarily the same thing as the Bible. The Word of God is the gospel of Jesus Christ, and (of course) you find that in the Bible but difficult parts of the Bible ought to be interpreted through the gospel.
The distinction is helpful (and I would argue, true) for many reasons, but when we're dealing with sola scriptura, I want to quote an article at biblicaltraining.org that talks about Luther's understanding of the "Word of God" and how he used that understanding to form a sola-scriptura outlook, and how he defended that against critics.
"We need to recognize that the notion that the Word of God is Jesus Christ himself allowed Luther to respond to the main objections Catholics raised to his doctrine of the authority of Scripture over the Church. They argued that since it was the Church that determined which books to be included in the Canon of Scripture it was clear that the Church had authority over the Bible. Luther responded that it was neither the Church that had made the Bible nor the Bible that had made the Church, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ that had made both the Bible and the Church. Final authority rests neither in the Church nor in the Bible, but in the Gospel, in the message of Jesus Christ, who is the incarnate Word of God."
Full article (for more context and interest) here: Free Online Bible Classes | What was Martin Luther's theology of the Word of God?. It's not a long read.
Where was Jesus crucified?That is where i am going with this. It is not the Gentile Church's authority or understanding that properly interprets scripture. The text says it is JEWISH interpretation that has to carry it.
The text was written by Jews and much of it was written TO Jews. Even the texts written to gentiles require a Jewish cultural understanding to properly apply what is written.
The truth is the New Testament canon was assembled by the early churches over some period of time.Nobody in any age of Bible writers - ever said "let's wait a few centuries for a Catholic church council to tell us what the Bible is".
Luke 24: 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
Not "in a few of the scriptures that they happened to have confirmed at the moment but they really weren't sure yet what "all the scriptures" even meant"
Josephus makes the point that for those Jews living at the time of Christ - the canon of scripture had been solidified and kept in the temple for over 400 years.
I don't undetstand how the gospel can decide which books. What about the OT?
The truth is the New Testament canon was assembled by the early churches over some period of time.
Even the Old Testament in different church organizations can have a different number of books. For example the two books of Maccabees are listed in the Catholic Bible but not in the Protestant Bibles. In fact, the Protestant Bible canon is seven books shorter than the Vulgate.
In addition to these 39 books, the Catholic Old Testament includes Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch (includes the Letters of Jeremiah), I and II Maccabees, and additions to Daniel and Esther. These books were included in the Septuagint! (Christianity Today)
Here comes a grenade!
But a helpful conversation, I believe.
I've seen many people take issue around these forums with sola scriptura - not just Catholics, but even non-traditional Protestants (for want of a better term).
Something that I've been exploring and that has been hugely helpful is understanding that the "Word of God" is not primarily the same thing as the Bible. The Word of God is the gospel of Jesus Christ, and (of course) you find that in the Bible but difficult parts of the Bible ought to be interpreted through the gospel.
The distinction is helpful (and I would argue, true) for many reasons, but when we're dealing with sola scriptura, I want to quote an article at biblicaltraining.org that talks about Luther's understanding of the "Word of God" and how he used that understanding to form a sola-scriptura outlook, and how he defended that against critics.
"We need to recognize that the notion that the Word of God is Jesus Christ himself allowed Luther to respond to the main objections Catholics raised to his doctrine of the authority of Scripture over the Church. They argued that since it was the Church that determined which books to be included in the Canon of Scripture it was clear that the Church had authority over the Bible. Luther responded that it was neither the Church that had made the Bible nor the Bible that had made the Church, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ that had made both the Bible and the Church. Final authority rests neither in the Church nor in the Bible, but in the Gospel, in the message of Jesus Christ, who is the incarnate Word of God."
Full article (for more context and interest) here: Free Online Bible Classes | What was Martin Luther's theology of the Word of God?. It's not a long read.
Even the Old Testament in different church organizations can have a different number of books. For example the two books of Maccabees are listed in the Catholic Bible but not in the Protestant Bibles.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?