I'll be back in a few weeks hopefully to pick up. Thanks for asking good questions!
Quote:
From what I remember they had some tests that when all together paint the picture.
Google: What criteria were used to determine the canon of Scripture?Quote:
Your whole approach is unsupportable. You follow tradition. Tradition gave you scripture.
k2aggie07 said:
Your view doesn't work. It's anachronistic and doesn't explain how the church existed just fine without the NT canon.
All that opinion is just a different tradition. And its not the ancient tradition, so it's not apostolic or trustworthy.
And all that below is fine, but not really relevant. Wait. It's through the canon we grow to love Christ? Where's *that* in the Bible? Haha.
k2aggie07 said:
Not sure what you mean by headed down a bad path. Heresies are just as prevalent today as they were then. Those in the church hold only to what they were taught - that is the only guard against heresy.
k2aggie07 said:
Truth. But the same could be said for the heresies of St Irenaeus' time. He said, paraphrasing, that the apostles deposited the teaching in the church like a bank, and anyone who wanted to learn could come. It's not different today.
Quote:
I don't think the Lord cares if a person is named, Apple, John, Little Bear, Yellow Hawk, Burt, Egor, Matilda, Kate, Ernie, etc. The Lord does care about that person's name being written in His book.
Quote:
What benefit is there in honoring the memory of a deceased ancestor (part of our earthly, fleshly family) versus a deceased saint (part of our spiritual, heavenly family)?
k2aggie07 said:
Also - don't you think it's kind of strange that given your faith is wholly based on the assumption of the reliability on scripture you don't even know how they were determined? You had to google that?
"What criteria were used to determine the canon of Scripture?" Is the wrong question, or at least an incomplete one. You also need to know who did it, when, and under what authority.
I encourage you to actually find out the answers to those questions, because it will show you how untenable the basis of sola scriptura is as an apostolic tradition or historical Christian belief.
k2aggie07 said:
St Irenaeus makes a sufficiently strong argument sans scripture, which makes sense given that he was defending in part against people who either denied or added to the gospels. And his defense is public teaching.
Rome's claim to papal supremacy does not stand up to any rigorous patristic scrutiny. At best it's nebulous. And papal infallibility enjoys no patristic support whatsoever. Making claims isn't the end of a discussion, it is the beginning.
The guard against heresy is to adhere to the faith which is taught publicly. This is scriptural advice, given by St Paul to St Timothy, and has been the litmus test in practice for as long as we have records.Quote:
I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason -- because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.
Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.
Quote:
Your view doesn't work. It's anachronistic and doesn't explain how the church existed just fine without the NT canon.
Quote:
All that opinion is just a different tradition. And its not the ancient tradition, so it's not apostolic or trustworthy.
Quote:
And all that below is fine, but not really relevant. Wait. It's through the canon we grow to love Christ? Where's *that* in the Bible? Haha.
My faith was born at a young age when I realized my own sinfulness and rebellious heart and put my faith in Jesus' death and resurrection for my own sins. My faith is based wholly on Him alone before I knew anything about the canon, inspiriation, etc. My faith in the reliability of the scriptures comes through years of reading, questions, and study. My reference to google was simply showing you how many quick searches corroborate my claims.Quote:
Also - don't you think it's kind of strange that given your faith is wholly based on the assumption of the reliability on scripture you don't even know how they were determined? You had to google that?
The who did it and when is easily answered. The authority is really irrelevant. Are the scriptures the 'breath of God" and do they exist regardless of who's in authority namely given that they were written by the apostles and their associates.Quote:
"What criteria were used to determine the canon of Scripture?" Is the wrong question, or at least an incomplete one. You also need to know who did it, when, and under what authority.
Considering the following:Quote:
I encourage you to actually find out the answers to those questions, because it will show you how untenable the basis of sola scriptura is as an apostolic tradition or historical Christian belief.
The Church founded by Jesus Christ through His Apostles. There is only one Church. Your view is just, like, your opinion, man. It is not the historical view, and it is not scriptural.Quote:
Again, which "church" are you referring to? The church in Jerusalem, Ephesus, Corinth, the churches in Rome, the ones mentioned in Revelation?
Please detail where you learned of this test and how, I'd love to know.Quote:
The way the early church fathers evaluated the canon was a historical fact/test vs a tradition. Part of that test included the tradition of scriptures used/read in church but remember, they were written over a period of time in different locations, countries and not in the information age. Part of the testing criteria is, "was it written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle"? I don't know how it could be considered not apostolic given that test.
Quote:
Were the NT scriptures given to the church by God through the apostles or are they mere commentary in the likes of Joel Osteen? There's no middle ground. They are either the given by God or simply some mans opinion which is irrelevant.
How did Jesus view the OT Scriptures?
Should the NT be viewed with the same authority and vigor?
Is it easily answered? Then answer it. If the authority is irrelevant, how do you know they're true? How do you know which are scripture and which are not? How do you know they were written by the apostles and their associates? How do you even know if that is a reliable test?Quote:
The who did it and when is easily answered. The authority is really irrelevant. Are the scriptures the 'breath of God" and do they exist regardless of who's in authority namely given that they were written by the apostles and their associates.
Let's be clear here, no one is arguing the usefulness of scripture.Quote:
Considering the following:
- That Jesus viewed the OT scriptures as the 'words of God"
- given that the apostle Paul claimed all scripture is the breath of God
- all NT scriptures were written by an associate of an apostle or an apostle.
I don't know what hire authority could be appealed to for validity.
I agree with you that the church was founded by Jesus Christ through His apostles. That there is only one Church (which are human believers who make up the body of Christ).Quote:
The Church founded by Jesus Christ through His Apostles. There is only one Church. Your view is just, like, your opinion, man. It is not the historical view, and it is not scriptural.
Did you notice that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth? And not the scriptures?
I sat in a class for a semester taught by Dr. Ken Wilson. In digging for reference to this I've found a few in other places:Quote:
Please detail where you learned of this test and how, I'd love to know.
This greatly helps me to understand where you are coming from.Quote:
You seem to be making an identity relationship between the word of Christ and the scriptures. But on the face this doesn't make any sense at all, because as your quote knows, Christ gave the Apostles the word before the scriptures were written. Therefore the scriptures reflect the Word of Christ, but unless Christ handed them the canon as we know it today, they cannot be the same thing. Unless, perhaps, you believe that Christ told them the scriptures word for word before His Ascension? This would be a very interesting take!
The NT scriptures were written by men, inspired by God. They were not word for word dictated by God, which is why we don't see the voice of God in which case there would be a uniform writing style, diction, and so on. Instead we see and can know St Paul, St Peter, St Mark, St John, all by how they write and what they say. Because they wrote as their own, with their own words - but they wrote as ones enlightened by Christ, from within the Spirit.
I think the point was missed about the quotes. The significance of Paul quoting Luke is the context. He specifically lumps Luke's writing with Moses writing and calls them both scriptures, on equal footing. Peter calls Paul's writing scripture.Quote:
-The NT scriptures quote from the Septuagint far more often than the Masoretic text (something like ten times as much), which has several books you probably reject. There are several indisputable deuterocanonical references in the NT. The NT has Christ quote from the LXX (for example in Mark 7:6-7). Do you think those books are scripture? If not, why?
Mmhm. And how are we to know the Church? St Paul tells us: "one bread," and in another place, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." If there are two faiths, two breads, two baptisms... are there two churches?Quote:
I agree with you that the church was founded by Jesus Christ through His apostles. That there is only one Church (which are human believers who make up the body of Christ).
You are welcome to believe, but the scriptures do not say that. This is just your opinion, based on nothing.Quote:
I disagree, because I believe that Jesus and His Word (all NT and OT Scriptures) are the pillar and foundation of truth. The Church should be a minister and distributor of His words (scripture) and the measure of truth and error of each local church can be measured against the scriptures.
So, not the scripture? Just a tradition of men, made up by some guys who are alive now, but were not alive when the canon was formed?Quote:
I sat in a class for a semester taught by Dr. Ken Wilson. In digging for reference to this I've found a few in other places:
Norman L. Geisler & William Nix, A General Introduction To The Bible. pp. 137-144).
Inspiration and Canonicity of the Scriptures by R. Laird Harris
"The original word"? Are you talking about theopneustos? It means God-breathed, literally theo (God) + pneo (to breathe out), breathed out by God. But again, you haven't established any way to test which scriptures are scriptures, or even which scriptures St Paul was talking about.Quote:
- The english word doesn't do the original word justice as it's too week. Humans are inspired by a thought, memory, beauty, etc. This is NOT what the scriptures claim to be.
"One of these things is not like the other"Quote:
God spoke creation into existance
God spoke from a burning bush,
God spoke at the baptism of Jesus
God spoke through the apostles and prophets.