New Testament apocrypha

6,046 Views | 52 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by Faithful Ag
The Shank Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This may have already been discussed many times over on this forum, but I was wondering of general consensus/thoughts on these texts.

As I have understood it, for the first few centuries of Christianity, discussion between priests and scholars over what was and wasn't New Testament Canon took place regularly. Irenaeus mentioned 21 books leaving out Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, etc. Revelations was one of the last to be decided to be added to Canon. Some say the Council of Nicaea played a role but that has mostly been disproven.

What other books that didn't quite make the cut have you read? Thoughts on those? Thoughts on the entire process of deciding was was canonical and what was not?
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jesus Instituted and left for the world a visible Church that all those seeking to follow Christ could find and know was true. He chose his Apostles and disciples to lead this Church and pass on the Faith carefully to future generations. Through the laying on of hands and Apostolic Succession believers could always find the Church and have confidence in what they were being taught. Christ promised that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church and protect His church and her teachings (Matt 16:18).

This visible, Apostolic Church collected many letters and writings from the Apostles and early disciple (some of them were included in the Canon and some were not). These writings were Debated by the early Church and were tested against the Faith that had been passed down through the Apostles (Sacred Traditions). The idea that everyone knew what books belonged in the Bible from the beginning is not accurate. There was a lot of debate about some of them and many of these were widely distributed and read by many Christians but did not make it into the Bible.

The Canon was first listed and approved by the Bishops at the Synod of Hippo in 393AD and ratified by the Council of Carthage in 397AD. Jesus left us His Church and His Church, though the guidance of the Holy Spirit, gave us the Bible...a collection of infallible, inspired writings written and collected by fallible men. I think many forget that not only were the books in the Bible inspired writings, but so too was the canonization process that happened hundreds of years after the final word was written.

A few of the books left out:
* Apocalypse of Peter
* The Epistle of Barnabas
* Infancy Gospel of James
* Shepherd of Hermas
* 1st Clement
* Gospel of Thomas
* The Didache
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The apocrypha is good Jewish history to read. But it is not Holy Scripture.
Ordhound04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:

The apocrypha is good Jewish history to read. But it is not Holy Scripture.

I think he is referring to NT books not in any canon, rather than OT books that some protestant denominations call the "Apocrypha".



For me I have read some of them (Didache, Clement, and Thomas.) Not sure I would consider Thomas to be Apocrypha though (Gnostic-ish). Each of the books I read, minus Thomas, have some good stuff, but not sure they fit with the apostolic authorship of the epistles (Clement) nor is it s gospel (Didache). So I could see why those particular books were left out of canon.
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think another way to ask this question is do you believe in an open or a closed canon? If you believe in a closed canon...when was it decided and who decided it definitively and by what authority?

When and where was it closed? How can we be sure they got it right?
Ordhound04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Faithful Ag said:

I think another way to ask this question is do you believe in an open or a closed canon? If you believe in a closed canon...when was it decided and who decided it definitively and by what authority?

When and where was it closed? How can we be sure they got it right?

I think Canon is closed for a few reasons. In terms of "Canonicity" I have read about some guidelines, such as:

[ol]
  • New Testament books had to come from the first century apostolic circleeither an apostle, from companion of an apostle, or otherwise qualified individual from the apostolic era. (It would further seem that only the Apostles themselves wrote epistles) (This would mean that Clement doesn't meet that standard since Clement's epistle was not written by an apostle)
    .
  • They could not contain things/teachings that contradict what those who knew Christ in the flesh would attest to. (Gnostics come across as an early church example, so the Gospel of Thomas is out)
    .
  • The person named as author must be the author. (This removes all "pseudo" works)
    .
  • The book must demonstrate inspiration from the Holy Spirit. (Which I guess depends on how you understand magisterial authority)
  • [/ol]
    So I would say that "canon" was closed with the death of the last apostle. So, if we find, for example, another epistle of Peter, that was confirmed to be authentic, we could totes have a conversation about it. However, if some dude named Peter, alive today, said he wrote a new gospel because God told him to...Not so much.
    The Shank Ag
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Ordhound04 said:

    Faithful Ag said:

    I think another way to ask this question is do you believe in an open or a closed canon? If you believe in a closed canon...when was it decided and who decided it definitively and by what authority?

    When and where was it closed? How can we be sure they got it right?

    I think Canon is closed for a few reasons. In terms of "Canonicity" I have read about some guidelines, such as:

    [ol]
  • New Testament books had to come from the first century apostolic circleeither an apostle, from companion of an apostle, or otherwise qualified individual from the apostolic era. (It would further seem that only the Apostles themselves wrote epistles) (This would mean that Clement doesn't meet that standard since Clement's epistle was not written by an apostle)
    .
  • They could not contain things/teachings that contradict what those who knew Christ in the flesh would attest to. (Gnostics come across as an early church example, so the Gospel of Thomas is out)
    .
  • The person named as author must be the author. (This removes all "pseudo" works)
    .
  • The book must demonstrate inspiration from the Holy Spirit. (Which I guess depends on how you understand magisterial authority)
  • [/ol]
    So I would say that "canon" was closed with the death of the last apostle. So, if we find, for example, another epistle of Peter, that was confirmed to be authentic, we could totes have a conversation about it. However, if some dude named Peter, alive today, said he wrote a new gospel because God told him to...Not so much.

    Isn't there quite a bit of evidence that several canon books were not written by the named apostle?
    jrico2727
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    I don't know if they were ever considered to scripture, but I have loved reading the Letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch. He wrote the letters as he was on his way to martyrdom in Rome. He was a joyful witness unto death.

    "I write to all the Churches, and impress on them all, that I shall willingly die for God, unless ye hinder me. I beseech of you not to show an unseasonable goodwill towards me. Suffer me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God. Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb, and may leave nothing of my body; so that when I have fallen asleep [in death], I may not be found troublesome to any one. Then shall I be a true disciple of Jesus Christ, when the world shall not see so much as my body. Entreat the Lord for me, that by these instruments I may be found a sacrifice to God. I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles of Jesus Christ, but I am the very least [of believers]: they were free, as the servants of God; while I am, even until now, a servant. But when I suffer, I shall be the freedman of Jesus Christ, and shall rise again emancipated in Him. And now, being in bonds for Him, I learn not to desire anything worldly or vain."

    Letters from St. Ignatius
    Faithful Ag
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Quote:


    I think Canon is closed for a few reasons. In terms of "Canonicity" I have read about some guidelines, such as:

    [ol]
  • New Testament books had to come from the first century apostolic circleeither an apostle, from companion of an apostle, or otherwise qualified individual from the apostolic era. (It would further seem that only the Apostles themselves wrote epistles) (This would mean that Clement doesn't meet that standard since Clement's epistle was not written by an apostle)

  • Clement is specifically named in the Bible in Philippians so I would think Clement would meet your criteria here. Do you believe that everything that the Apostles wrote is Scripture and was included in the canon we have today? If not, who decided what to exclude and why should we trust their decisions today?
    .
    Quote:


  • They could not contain things/teachings that contradict what those who knew Christ in the flesh would attest to. (Gnostics come across as an early church example, so the Gospel of Thomas is out).

  • Again, WHO gets to decide if the writings teach something that contradict what those who knew Christ would attest to? How do the followers of Christ know who to listen to and follow when differences did arise?
    .
    Quote:


  • The person named as author must be the author. (This removes all "pseudo" works)

  • We do not know who wrote Hebrews. The Gospel of Mark is believed to have been written by John Mark but we are not absolutely certain of that. I do not believe either of these would be considered pseudo works.
    .
    Quote:


  • The book must demonstrate inspiration from the Holy Spirit. (Which I guess depends on how you understand magisterial authority)
  • [/ol]

    Correct...the question remains WHO can make this decision with authority that the followers of Christ would be able to know is true and correct? My answer would be the visible and apostolic church.

    Quote:


    So I would say that "canon" was closed with the death of the last apostle. So, if we find, for example, another epistle of Peter, that was confirmed to be authentic, we could totes have a conversation about it. However, if some dude named Peter, alive today, said he wrote a new gospel because God told him to...Not so much.


    This issue is not something that I am comfortable leaving up to a single individual, or what someone might think sounds good, or some guidelines that some Biblical Scholar came up with.

    Jesus gave us His Church, which can be visibly identified by Christians from the very beginning. He promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide his Church into all truth and protect her forever. Through this Church we were given the Bible and because of Christ's promise we know it is true.
    Ordhound04
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG

    Well, All the "Epistles" come from an Apostle. (Although their is some dispute about Hebrews) So that would seem to disqualify Clement as having written scripture. It may be different if Clement wrote a Gospel, but alas he didn't, that we know of. Moreover, I think in 1 Corinthians one letter Paul wrote he mentions a previous letter he wrote, or that he was providing additional letters. So we know the apostles wrote things that did not get preserved. (Hence why I state we could talk about that if they were ever found)

    In terms of WHO gets to decide, as I stated, it depends on how one views magisterial authority. Maybe a good place to start would be areas of unanimous consent among the early church fathers. Heck the Gnostic gospels reject the crucifixion. That would be something easily dismissed by talking to a still breathing Mary, John, Peter, etc. Maybe that's why many of the Gnostic texts are not apostolic in their era.

    In terms of scripture. I think it's clear that Scripture needs the "church" (However you define it) for authentication, not the other way around. Personally, I am Roman Catholic so the magisterial authority rests there. (If I believed otherwise I would not be Catholic)
    Faithful Ag
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    I agree with you that the Catholic Church is the reason all Christians can know the Bible is infallible. The visible and apostolic church of the earliest Christians is and was the Catholic Church. Your post seemed to imply a lot of other justifications for what is scripture so my apologies if I misunderstood your view.

    Whether or not a Christian will admit it...the reality is that the Bible was given to us through the Church by testing what was written against what had been passed down for generations to Christians in the Church. The 27 books that were ultimately included in the NT canon, plus scores of other writings from the apostles and early church leaders were debated and considered. The Church, in an authoritative process and guided by the Holy Spirit, decided on the Canon.

    The Bible was never intended to be a stand alone authority apart from the Church or the Sacred Traditions of the Faith. The Holy Spirit guides THE CHURCH into all truth, which includes the proper interpretation and understanding of the Holy Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is more accurately "Sola Interpretation".

    Sorry if I derailed the thread.

    AgLiving06
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Quote:

    I agree with you that the Catholic Church is the reason all Christians can know the Bible is infallible. The visible and apostolic church of the earliest Christians is and was the Catholic Church. Your post seemed to imply a lot of other justifications for what is scripture so my apologies if I misunderstood your view.

    This isn't correct. The Roman Catholic Church does not have any authority or exclusivity over the Church Fathers, the majority of which would not claim to be Roman anyways.

    Quote:

    Whether or not a Christian will admit it...the reality is that the Bible was given to us through the Church by testing what was written against what had been passed down for generations to Christians in the Church. The 27 books that were ultimately included in the NT canon, plus scores of other writings from the apostles and early church leaders were debated and considered. The Church, in an authoritative process and guided by the Holy Spirit, decided on the Canon.

    True. Many different groups had scriptures they felt were relevant. It made sense to unify.

    Quote:

    The Bible was never intended to be a stand alone authority apart from the Church or the Sacred Traditions of the Faith. The Holy Spirit guides THE CHURCH into all truth, which includes the proper interpretation and understanding of the Holy Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is more accurately "Sola Interpretation".

    You don't seem to understand what Sola Scriptura is...
    Faithful Ag
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Quote:

    Quote:


    I agree with you that the Catholic Church is the reason all Christians can know the Bible is infallible. The visible and apostolic church of the earliest Christians is and was the Catholic Church. Your post seemed to imply a lot of other justifications for what is scripture so my apologies if I misunderstood your view.


    This isn't correct. The Roman Catholic Church does not have any authority or exclusivity over the Church Fathers, the majority of which would not claim to be Roman anyways.


    I did not say anything about Rome or Roman or authority over Church fathers. However, Christ did give us a visible, apostolic Church. The early Church fathers were members of this Universal (Catholic) Christian Church. The Church existed before a single word was ever written down, and it is and was the Church universal -with it's apostolic leaders - that nearly 400 years after the Resurrection had the authority to make a binding decision on what is Scripture.

    America is less than 250 years old for some perspective. 400 years is a long time.

    ETA: I see why you said Roman now based on my above response. My point wasn't so much about "Roman" Catholic as much as about there having always been a visible church started by Christ.

    Quote:

    Quote:


    Whether or not a Christian will admit it...the reality is that the Bible was given to us through the Church by testing what was written against what had been passed down for generations to Christians in the Church. The 27 books that were ultimately included in the NT canon, plus scores of other writings from the apostles and early church leaders were debated and considered. The Church, in an authoritative process and guided by the Holy Spirit, decided on the Canon.


    True. Many different groups had scriptures they felt were relevant. It made sense to unify.

    You say this as if it was no big and a simple process. There was significant discussion and debate and tons of writings in the mix. In the end, the Church through its ordained, apostolic leaders made the decision. The purpose was not to unify...it was to protect the true and orthodox faith.

    Would you agree that this canonization process was guided by the Holy Spirit and protected these men from making any error in their decision?

    Quote:

    Quote:


    The Bible was never intended to be a stand alone authority apart from the Church or the Sacred Traditions of the Faith. The Holy Spirit guides THE CHURCH into all truth, which includes the proper interpretation and understanding of the Holy Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is more accurately "Sola Interpretation".


    You don't seem to understand what Sola Scriptura is...

    I am very familiar with Sola Scriptura and understand it quite well...it is absolutely not Scriptural, not historical, and not workable.
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    There was never any "binding" decision on what was scripture unless you count Trent. "Binding" brings up a host of other questions in itself..
    Faithful Ag
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    That's a fair point, K2. However, my point about Sola Scriptura remains.
    Ordhound04
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    k2aggie07 said:

    There was never any "binding" decision on what was scripture unless you count Trent. "Binding" brings up a host of other questions in itself..

    To be fair we have Hippo, Carthage, and Rome councils/synods, all in the 4th century. Trent was an official "affirmation" of a canon that already was agreed upon. It was in response to a deletion of parts of the OT, and an attempt to even jettison parts of the NT.
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Yah my point was local synods aren't "binding". And the North African councils aren't great support for Rome's conciliar claims.

    I think the early canons are just reflecting dogmatic fact. These are the books the Christians used.
    GasPasser97
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    I would love to read a thread on the Early Church here...sticky it to the top.

    K2 and the like would give great insight into the topic...canon formation, councils, thoughts of the church fathers, geopolitical issues at the time, references, etc.

    Would be fascinating!
    AgLiving06
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Quote:

    I did not say anything about Rome or Roman or authority over Church fathers. However, Christ did give us a visible, apostolic Church. The early Church fathers were members of this Universal (Catholic) Christian Church. The Church existed before a single word was ever written down, and it is and was the Church universal -with it's apostolic leaders - that nearly 400 years after the Resurrection had the authority to make a binding decision on what is Scripture.

    Yes..universal catholic (small c) Church. Not the Roman Catholic Church. When you try to capitalize the C, it's clear you're working to claim that the Roman Catholic church is somehow responsible for everything and that's patently false.

    In terms of binding? No, the first 7 Ecumenical Councils took nearly 800 years, not the 400 you want to claim.

    Quote:

    I am very familiar with Sola Scriptura and understand it quite well...it is absolutely not Scriptural, not historical, and not workable.

    Editing your post to add more words really does nothing.

    Scriptural, historical, not workable?

    You're only real argument here is to based on how you are going to define "the Church." I'm sure you will say this makes Roman Catholics unique with the "successor to Peter" as the head of said Church.

    Just as the Orthodox will claim they are the one true Church because they hold to the true faith.

    Just as Lutherans will claim they are the one true Church because they hold to the true faith.

    It's just a weak argument.
    Faithful Ag
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Quote:

    Yes..universal catholic (small c) Church. Not the Roman Catholic Church. When you try to capitalize the C, it's clear you're working to claim that the Roman Catholic church is somehow responsible for everything and that's patently false.


    Would you agree that there was a visible Christian church in the earliest days of Christianity? One where if someone wanted to join the church they could find "it", and have confidence that in fact found the true church of Christ?

    Would you agree that a universal, small c catholic church existed and can be found and seen functioning and adding new members to it in the Bible? Does the Bible show us that some in the church were set apart to lead the church and protect it from any false doctrines or teachings?

    I am not asking you to accept that this church is the Roman Catholic Church or Orthodox Church of today. I just want to know if you see a universal, apostolic church in the New Testament?

    Quote:


    In terms of binding? No, the first 7 Ecumenical Councils took nearly 800 years, not the 400 you want to claim.

    This does not diminish or weaken my position in any way, and in fact only strengthens it in my view.

    Quote:

    Quote:

    I am very familiar with Sola Scriptura and understand it quite well...it is absolutely not Scriptural, not historical, and not workable.


    Editing your post to add more words really does nothing.

    Scriptural, historical, not workable?

    You're only real argument here is to based on how you are going to define "the Church." I'm sure you will say this makes Roman Catholics unique with the "successor to Peter" as the head of said Church.

    Generally, I like to ask people questions about what they believe and why...and I like to make my own position known and speak for myself. I prefer not to have others make assumptions about my views or put words into my mouth or tell me what my argument is. I'd be glad to dialog with you about Sola Scriptura if you would like.

    Quote:


    Just as the Orthodox will claim they are the one true Church because they hold to the true faith.

    Just as Lutherans will claim they are the one true Church because they hold to the true faith.

    It's just a weak argument.

    Again, think it's a little disingenuous to try and tell me what my position is and then discount that position as a weak argument.

    And for the record...one of these 3 examples (the Catholics, Orthodox, and Lutherans) is not like the others.
    AgLiving06
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Quote:

    Would you agree that a universal, small c catholic church existed and can be found and seen functioning and adding new members to it in the Bible? Does the Bible show us that some in the church were set apart to lead the church and protect it from any false doctrines or teachings?

    There was certainly a loose structure in place, mainly as far as we can see from Paul. Beyond that, things get much murkier. If you want to then follow up and say the early Church, worked to create a structure as well, that's also true, but it could be argued it was out of convenience.

    Quote:

    This does not diminish or weaken my position in any way, and in fact only strengthens it in my view.

    Not really. There's little disagreement over the first 7 councils among the Reformers. The arguments come with all the "extras" that were not covered that somehow slipped in later without any real authority to do so.

    Quote:

    Generally, I like to ask people questions about what they believe and why...and I like to make my own position known and speak for myself. I prefer not to have others make assumptions about my views or put words into my mouth or tell me what my argument is. I'd be glad to dialog with you about Sola Scriptura if you would like.

    The problem is that in both posts, your "position" show the opposite of understanding.

    Lets take your first one, which you declared "Sola Interpretation." To make that particular argument is to make the claim that Sola Scriptura is just the casual reader opening the Bible and "interpreting it on his own." That shows a lack of understanding of what the Reformation was even about.

    You then follow up saying "it is absolutely not Scriptural, not historical, and not workable."

    It's not historical to look to the Fathers for their interpretation?
    It's not workable to hold that the Scriptures are the only infallible source? That humans may err? That Popes can be corrupt? That councils may err?
    Scriptural? That's not even an argument.

    Quote:

    Again, think it's a little disingenuous to try and tell me what my position is and then discount that position as a weak argument.

    And for the record...one of these 3 examples (the Catholics, Orthodox, and Lutherans) is not like the others.

    You're right. The Roman Catholics have either plundered or attempted to kill the other 2 at different points in history...
    Faithful Ag
    How long do you want to ignore this user?

    Quote:

    Quote:


    Would you agree that a universal, small c catholic church existed and can be found and seen functioning and adding new members to it in the Bible? Does the Bible show us that some in the church were set apart to lead the church and protect it from any false doctrines or teachings?


    There was certainly a loose structure in place, mainly as far as we can see from Paul. Beyond that, things get much murkier. If you want to then follow up and say the early Church, worked to create a structure as well, that's also true, but it could be argued it was out of convenience.


    What is your position? You seem to be dancing around the issue. Perhaps just focus on the first part of that question (the part excluded in your response)....

    ...Would you agree that there was a visible Christian church in the earliest days of Christianity? One where if someone wanted to join the church they could find "it", and have confidence that in fact found the true church of Christ?



    Quote:

    Quote:


    This does not diminish or weaken my position in any way, and in fact only strengthens it in my view.


    Not really. There's little disagreement over the first 7 councils among the Reformers. The arguments come with all the "extras" that were not covered that somehow slipped in later without any real authority to do so.


    These 7 councils you speak of...who attended these meetings, how were they chosen, and why them in particular? Was this a result of the "loose structure of the early church that gets much murkier after Paul" and was really just for convenience?

    You say there was little disagreement among the reformers...are you talking about their views on what books belong in the Biblical Canon or other "extras"? I don't think Martin Luther's views on the book of James, or Hebrews, or Revelation, or the 7 books he wanted removed from the OT would count as "little disagreement". Unfortunately Protestants removed those 7 books and went against the 1,000+ years of their inclusion in the Scriptures.

    There is a reason that the Catholics and Orthodox have kept the Deuterocanonicals in their Bibles, and why the original King James edition also had them. Because they had always been a part of the Christian Tradition and Canon.

    Quote:

    Quote:


    Generally, I like to ask people questions about what they believe and why...and I like to make my own position known and speak for myself. I prefer not to have others make assumptions about my views or put words into my mouth or tell me what my argument is. I'd be glad to dialog with you about Sola Scriptura if you would like.


    The problem is that in both posts, your "position" show the opposite of understanding.

    Lets take your first one, which you declared "Sola Interpretation." To make that particular argument is to make the claim that Sola Scriptura is just the casual reader opening the Bible and "interpreting it on his own." That shows a lack of understanding of what the Reformation was even about.

    I guess I would be interested to hear how exactly I am wrong on that point. Regardless if it is a casual reader or a Biblical scholar, ultimately it IS about how the reader interprets the Bible, not what the Biblical text says. It is the meaning you/your pastor/your faith tradition interpret the text to mean, through the lens of your faith tradition, and how you choose to apply that interpretation to your beliefs.

    This why Luther, Calvin, and Swingli all held different views on the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and were at odds with each other on other issues as well. They all read from the same Bible and the same verses...yet came to different interpretations about what the Bible clearly taught.

    Quote:


    You then follow up saying "it is absolutely not Scriptural, not historical, and not workable."

    It's not historical to look to the Fathers for their interpretation?
    It is not historical in that the early church and church fathers did not practice sola Scriptura, and neither did the Christian community at large prior to the reformation. The apostles and early church fathers were busy building a church and teaching and passing down the faith. This was primarily through oral and hands-on teaching and preaching (Traditions). Their focus was not trying to write every detail down as quickly as possible in order to create a Bible. Illiteracy was very high as well prior to the printing press.
    Quote:


    It's not workable to hold that the Scriptures are the only infallible source? That humans may err? That Popes can be corrupt? That councils may err?

    The Bible is God breathed, holy and infallible and without error as a collection of writings. This does not mean that everyone who reads the Bible will be able to interpret what was written with infallibility. This is where human error creeps in and that is really the point here. In order for the Bible to remain infallible you must be able to interpret it correctly, lest we twist the scriptures to our own destruction. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit and promised it would guide the church - which is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

    The church (Catholic or otherwise) is full of sinners, all are fallible, all can and do err. Many Popes have been scoundrels and not a single Pope was or will ever be perfect or without sin. However, Jesus promised us that He would build His Church and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. God prevented fallible men from error when they wrote the letters of the Bible, just as God prevented men (the church) from error hundreds of years later when collecting and discerning which of those letters are or should be recognized as scripture.

    God literally breathed life into the church at Pentecost. From the very beginning there has been a visible, apostolic church on earth guided into truth and protected by the Holy Spirit. God keeps His promises.

    Quote:


    Scriptural? That's not even an argument.

    Okay...please show me where in the Bible it is taught that the Bible is the ONLY infallible source for a Christian? Please give me the chapter and verse that prove the Bible is the sole authority, above any other authority.

    Sola Scriptura is not found in Scripture, either explicitly or implicitly. It is not there.
    AgLiving06
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Quote:

    Would you agree that there was a visible Christian church in the earliest days of Christianity? One where if someone wanted to join the church they could find "it", and have confidence that in fact found the true church of Christ?

    No, I think it's pretty clear that early on there were different versions of Christianity that existed. Hence why there were councils, why there were disagreements on what writings were correct, etc.

    I don't think that makes it a problem though and not terrible different than today where people are still trying to understand the scriptures. We just have a better starting point.

    Quote:

    You say there was little disagreement among the reformers...are you talking about their views on what books belong in the Biblical Canon or other "extras"? I don't think Martin Luther's views on the book of James, or Hebrews, or Revelation, or the 7 books he wanted removed from the OT would count as "little disagreement". Unfortunately Protestants removed those 7 books and went against the 1,000+ years of their inclusion in the Scriptures.

    Unfortunately, you are once again incorrect.

    First, Martin Luther was willing to recognize that, like the Fathers, several books were held as controversial. He's one of the few willing to acknowledge that they were controversial, yet held to be part of the NT. Nothing wrong with that, especially in a time when they were dealing with forgeries from Rome.

    Second, He never removed them. To say so is to show ignorance of the history. Since you are surely aware that Martin Luther did not remove a single book, you must have confused him with some random organization that came much later.

    Quote:

    I guess I would be interested to hear how exactly I am wrong on that point. Regardless if it is a casual reader or a Biblical scholar, ultimately it IS about how the reader interprets the Bible, not what the Biblical text says. It is the meaning you/your pastor/your faith tradition interpret the text to mean, through the lens of your faith tradition, and how you choose to apply that interpretation to your beliefs.

    Incorrect, though more interesting than you realize.

    First, the Reformers were entirely about how the Fathers interpreted Scriptures. Martin Luther argued that he was a Reformer, not an innovator. He didn't have original thoughts.

    Second, if you want to argue that what you wrote is applicable to Lutherans/Reformers, than the exact same thing can be turned around on Roman Catholics, down to the Pope using his "Papal infallibility" to shape doctrine as he see fit.

    Quote:

    It is not historical in that the early church and church fathers did not practice sola Scriptura, and neither did the Christian community at large prior to the reformation. The apostles and early church fathers were busy building a church and teaching and passing down the faith. This was primarily through oral and hands-on teaching and preaching (Traditions). Their focus was not trying to write every detail down as quickly as possible in order to create a Bible. Illiteracy was very high as well prior to the printing press.

    Again, not correct.

    First, throughout the Scriptures we are told to search the scriptures. When Jesus was questioned by the Devil, he quoted the Scriptures.

    Paul exhorted others to read the Scriptures to see if what he was saying about Jesus was correct.

    Even during the first Council in Acts, once agreement was reached, they wrote it down to document the actions so that others could read and believe.

    Finally, throughout history, writers such as St. Chrysostom to Augustine, we can see calls to uphold scriptures as the source of truth.


    Quote:

    Okay...please show me where in the Bible it is taught that the Bible is the ONLY infallible source for a Christian? Please give me the chapter and verse that prove the Bible is the sole authority, above any other authority.

    This will bring us full circle.

    The Bible says the Scriptures are God Breathed. You're argument is that someone (a Pope) is somehow uniquely understanding them. Or some how that anyone in this world is uniquely understanding them.

    Certainly the Church is then set up to retain the faith...but now we are left on how we should define the Church, which is what I brought up in the first place.


    Editing with a clearer head and less distractions.
    Faithful Ag
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Quote:

    Quote:

    Would you agree that there was a visible Christian church in the earliest days of Christianity? One where if someone wanted to join the church they could find "it", and have confidence that in fact found the true church of Christ?


    No, I think it's pretty clear that early on there were different versions of Christianity that existed. Hence why there were councils, why there were disagreements on what writings were correct, etc.

    I don't think that makes it a problem though and not terrible different than today where people are still trying to understand the scriptures. We just have a better starting point.
    Interesting. I do not find anywhere in Scripture where Jesus intended to have different versions of Christianity or followers with various beliefs about Christ. In fact, I see the exact opposite. For example, I would point you to the Gospel of John chapter 17 - The Prayer of Jesus was that we would be ONE just as the Father and the Son are one so that we may be brought into perfection and consecrated in the truth (Specifically John 17:20-23 but really the whole chapter).

    1 Cor 1:10 - I urge you brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be NO DIVISIONS among you, but that you be UNITED in the SAME mind and in the SAME purpose.

    I see nothing in scripture that encourages, promotes, or accepts different versions of Christianity. The Church councils were called because the church had to protect the true Gospel. Councils of THE (singular) CHURCH and were called to clarify teaching and correct errors that were being taught by some. The Church had the responsibility to protect what was orthodox and correct theology and teaching. When the Church held a council and made a decision, guided by the Holy Spirit, the entire Christian world was put on notice as to what the Church believed. It was not one man - it was the ONE, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.


    Quote:

    Quote:

    You say there was little disagreement among the reformers...are you talking about their views on what books belong in the Biblical Canon or other "extras"? I don't think Martin Luther's views on the book of James, or Hebrews, or Revelation, or the 7 books he wanted removed from the OT would count as "little disagreement". Unfortunately Protestants removed those 7 books and went against the 1,000+ years of their inclusion in the Scriptures.

    Unfortunately, you are once again incorrect.

    First, Martin Luther was willing to recognize that, like the Fathers, several books were held as controversial. He's one of the few willing to acknowledge that they were controversial, yet held to be part of the NT. Nothing wrong with that, especially in a time when they were dealing with forgeries from Rome.

    Second, He never removed them. To say so is to show ignorance of the history.
    I am not sure if you are purposely misreading or misrepresenting what I wrote or what - I NEVER said that Luther actually removed the books, only that he wanted to remove them.

    However, Luther did attempt to have James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelations, along with the OT Apocrypha removed but the opposition and outcry from his followers was so strong he relented. Instead in his disdain for them, he moved these books to the back of his Bible where he felt they belonged. The book of James was an "epistle of straw" in Luther's opinion.

    The Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books were eventually removed from most Protestant Bibles altogether. My guess is your Bible does not have them. Did you know that the original King James Bible in 1611 included the these OT books, and continued to include them until around 1885 when they were removed from the Bible?
    Quote:

    Since you are surely aware that Martin Luther did not remove a single book, you must have confused him with some random organization that came much later.
    This begs the question does it not?? WHO, what organization or what man/men, made the decision to go against more than 1,500 to 1,800 years of Christian practice and Tradition and remove these books, and by what authority do they claim to be able to do this? We are discussing the Biblical Canon, and if you want to hold to Scripture alone I would think you need to know you have the right books in your Bible and that there is nothing extra or nothing missing. That your Bible is correct and complete.

    Quote:

    Quote:

    I guess I would be interested to hear how exactly I am wrong on that point. Regardless if it is a casual reader or a Biblical scholar, ultimately it IS about how the reader interprets the Bible, not what the Biblical text says. It is the meaning you/your pastor/your faith tradition interpret the text to mean, through the lens of your faith tradition, and how you choose to apply that interpretation to your beliefs.

    Incorrect, though more interesting than you realize.

    First, the Reformers were entirely about how the Fathers interpreted Scriptures. Martin Luther argued that he was a Reformer, not an innovator. He didn't have original thoughts.

    Second, if you want to argue that what you wrote is applicable to Lutherans/Reformers, than the exact same thing can be turned around on Roman Catholics, down to the Pope using his "Papal infallibility" to shape doctrine as he see fit.
    First, thank you for editing your post. I am glad you took out all of that nonsense about the church fathers being "kept" from Catholics, and that the majority of the fathers didn't align or agree with the Catholic Church. Catholics read and rely heavily on the early church fathers and always have.

    I find that most often when people make these types of statements it is because they think they know what the Catholic Church teaches, but in fact they are quite mistaken and wrong in their assumptions or understanding of the issue.

    It reminds me of the old Ronald Reagan quote"the trouble with our liberal friends isn't that they are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."


    Now, to address your points here:
    Luther, Calvin, Swingly, Wesley, etc. were all working from the same Scriptures, and (presumably) all had access to the writings and interpretations of the church fathers, and yet they all came to different competing conclusions and interpretations of very important theological issues. How is this possible if they are all working from a Sola Scriptura doctrine? Which one got it "right" and which ones got it wrong? How do we know who to listen to?

    As far as comparing the issues protestant's face and equating that to papal infallibility - the issues are actually quite different, and to conflate the two shows you do not properly understand the concept of papal infallibility or the role that the Scriptures and the Sacred Traditions also play in the process. Catholics do not subscribe to Sola Scriptura, and have always recognized that the Word of God is not exclusively found in the God-Breathed Scriptures, but also known through the Sacred Apostolic Traditions of the God-Breathed Church.

    You, however, limit yourself to the Bible alone. Catholics and the Orthodox see God's word as more than just the Scriptures because it exists in more ways than only the written form. It always has including throughout the entirety of Christian history.
    Quote:

    Quote:

    It is not historical in that the early church and church fathers did not practice sola Scriptura, and neither did the Christian community at large prior to the reformation. The apostles and early church fathers were busy building a church and teaching and passing down the faith. This was primarily through oral and hands-on teaching and preaching (Traditions). Their focus was not trying to write every detail down as quickly as possible in order to create a Bible. Illiteracy was very high as well prior to the printing press.

    Again, not correct.

    First, throughout the Scriptures we are told to search the scriptures. When Jesus was questioned by the Devil, he quoted the Scriptures.

    Paul exhorted others to read the Scriptures to see if what he was saying about Jesus was correct.

    Even during the first Council in Acts, once agreement was reached, they wrote it down to document the actions so that others could read and believe.

    Finally, throughout history, writers such as St. Chrysostom to Augustine, we can see calls to uphold scriptures as the source of truth.
    Amen. We both agree that it is good to search the Scriptures, and to reference and quote from the Scriptures! The fact that Jesus quoted from the OT (predominantly the Septuagint) does not make the case for Sola Scriptura, nor does Paul's exhortation to read the scriptures. Actually, 1 Tim 4: 13-15 gives a glimpse into the visible church in early Christianity that I have been asking you to acknowledge existed.

    Following the council of Jerusalem where Peter ended the debate and James concurred with Peter, James had their decision sent by letter to the Gentile Church. This was not to document the actions for a future Bible, but rather to give the Gentile's the clarity and confidence that what was being conveyed was the decision of the church, and thus right and authoritative.

    Augustine said "If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don't like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself." He also said, "I would not believe the Gospel myself if the authority of the Church did not move me to do so."

    This does not in any way detract from the Scriptures as being the God-Breathed, infallible Word of God but it does show that the Scriptures are not the all-encompassing Word of God. The father's looked to the Scriptures but did not leave the church behind in the process.

    (I noticed you edited and removed the part about "Nowhere do we see some argument for something not in the scriptures". - Probably better that you removed that part because there is actually quite a bit of Scripture that contradicts you on that one.)
    Quote:

    Quote:

    okay...please show me where in the Bible it is taught that the Bible is the ONLY infallible source for a Christian? Please give me the chapter and verse that prove the Bible is the sole authority, above any other authority.

    This will bring us full circle.

    The Bible says the Scriptures are God Breathed. You're argument is that someone (a Pope) is somehow uniquely understanding them. Or some how that anyone in this world is uniquely understanding them.

    Certainly the Church is then set up to retain the faith...but now we are left on how we should define the Church, which is what I brought up in the first place.
    That is a complete copout.

    You simply CANNOT do it. It is impossible. It is not that you don't want to give me a single verse, but rather that the verse DOES NOT exist. Not one.

    You keep trying to bring me into a discussion about the pope as if it is in the pope that I place my trust in. I place my trust in Jesus Christ and the apostolic church he founded and protects through the Holy Spirit for all generations. The faith of our fathers is passed down through the church, through her Traditions, and through the Bible all working as ONE, just as there is only one truth.

    The reality is that Sola Scriptura is just not Scriptural.which is why you are unable to provide me with any scriptural support for it.


    (edit to fix punctuation)
    2nd edit because somehow this double posted
    AgLiving06
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Quote:

    Interesting. I do not find anywhere in Scripture where Jesus intended to have different versions of Christianity or followers with various beliefs about Christ. In fact, I see the exact opposite. For example, I would point you to the Gospel of John chapter 17 - The Prayer of Jesus was that we would be ONE just as the Father and the Son are one so that we may be brought into perfection and consecrated in the truth (Specifically John 17:20-23 but really the whole chapter).

    Nice straw man!

    No where did I say or argue that Jesus intended for different versions of Christianity to exist. What Jesus/God want and what Man does have been different since the beginning.

    Here's a good example of the flaw in your your argument. In Genesis we see that Adam and Eve ignored God's will and ate from the Tree of Life. Based on your statement above, we could actual read that as God put the Tree of Life in Garden, intending for Adam and Eve to eat of it and fall. I doubt this is an argument you would try to make, but that shows the weakness in what you wrote.

    However, from Scriptures we do know that as early as Acts 15, a council was needed because there was already a dispute that was necessary to address. We also see Paul oppose Peter in Galatians 2.

    I'm not sure why this is a controversial point?

    Quote:

    However, Luther did attempt to have James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelations, along with the OT Apocrypha removed but the opposition and outcry from his followers was so strong he relented. Instead in his disdain for them, he moved these books to the back of his Bible where he felt they belonged. The book of James was an "epistle of straw" in Luther's opinion.

    The argument against Luther and the Book of James is one of my more favorite ones to respond to.

    First, yes early on he took the same view of the Fathers that James (and other books) were more debated and questioned before being accepted. I don't think that's controversial to hold the same view of the Fathers.

    Second, Yes he struggled with reconciling James and Paul (Specifically Romans and Galatians). Most christians should struggle with that though.

    Third, As I'm sure you're aware, he slept of a bed of straw. So in his view James was the "every man's" handbook on how to live, not the revolutionary concepts that the Gospels and some of Pauls letters were.

    Fourth, As I'm sure you know, at the end of Luther's life, he was of the opinion you could burn all of his books except for 3. The Large and Small Catechism and The Bondage of the Will. I believe James is quoted in the Catechisms, and I'm pretty sure in Bondage of the Will.

    So while it sounds like a good argument at the superficial level, it falls apart pretty quickly.

    Quote:

    The Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books were eventually removed from most Protestant Bibles altogether. My guess is your Bible does not have them. Did you know that the original King James Bible in 1611 included the these OT books, and continued to include them until around 1885 when they were removed from the Bible?

    The primary Lutheran publisher has a great book on The Apocryphal books: The Apocrypha with study notes and all.

    I'm assuming your aware that to this day the OT in The Orthodox book is different than the OT of Roman Catholics. Neither has officially closed their canon (as far as I'm aware). I believe they also order the Psalms different.

    So while good history, it actually supports my position, not yours.

    Quote:

    This begs the question does it not?? WHO, what organization or what man/men, made the decision to go against more than 1,500 to 1,800 years of Christian practice and Tradition and remove these books, and by what authority do they claim to be able to do this? We are discussing the Biblical Canon, and if you want to hold to Scripture alone I would think you need to know you have the right books in your Bible and that there is nothing extra or nothing missing. That your Bible is correct and complete.

    See above.

    It's not a concern of mine what others did or didn't do with different versions.

    Quote:

    Luther, Calvin, Swingly, Wesley, etc. were all working from the same Scriptures, and (presumably) all had access to the writings and interpretations of the church fathers, and yet they all came to different competing conclusions and interpretations of very important theological issues. How is this possible if they are all working from a Sola Scriptura doctrine? Which one got it "right" and which ones got it wrong? How do we know who to listen to?

    Why limit it to these guys? Lets go back further to see what caused the Great Schism.

    Differing views on Papal Supremacy (primary) and secondary issues around the Filioque, etc.

    They were still one Church at that time and had access to the same sources...yet split the Church entirely over those issues. Who was right?

    But lets talk directly about your point now. Do you know what Luther (and others) wanted more than anything? A true Council to debate and discuss, not a split Church. What did Roman Catholics do?

    First, they put a bounty out to bring in Luther Dead or Alive.

    Second, we get the Augsburg Diet, which produced one of the better confessions ever written (imo), but that Roman Catholics where wholly unprepared for. Ironically it's assumed to this day that the Vatican has the original copy of the Augsburg Confession that was taken from the Lutherans and never given back. The Lutherans never received a copy of Rome's response, but had people transcribing to recreate it.

    Third, the Council we finally got was Trent, which was a joke. It can be summarized as this: Follow the Roman Catholic teaching or be anathema. Fortunately, Martin Chemnitz wrote one of the best 4 volume rebuttals available to point out all the flaws of that Council.

    So who do I think was right? I'm Lutheran.

    What would have been wonderful to see? A true Council to debate the issues, not death threats.

    Quote:

    That is a complete copout.

    You simply CANNOT do it. It is impossible. It is not that you don't want to give me a single verse, but rather that the verse DOES NOT exist. Not one.

    Not a cop out. Was limited on time.

    2 Timothy 3:16-17 - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

    As I also mentioned, Acts 15 shows that as soon as a decision was made, it was written down as the first Epistle.

    When Satan tries to tempt Jesus, was does Jesus say? "It is written." Btw, this also shows that Satan is very familiar with the Scriptures.

    There's also a long history of the Father's setting the Scriptures up as the authority.

    St. Augustine - "Although the Lord Jesus had done many things, not all were written, but those were selected to be written which were thought to be sufficient for salvation of the believers."

    St. Cyril - "Not all things that the Lord did have been written, but what the writers believed would suffice both for morals and for dogmas, in order that we may through the right faith and works, and shining through virtue, come to the kingdom of heaven through Jesus Christ

    St. Chrysostom - "Matthew wrote when the believers in Christ from among the Jews had approached him and asked that he would send them in writing what he had taught them by word of mouth, that it might be preserved."

    Jerome - "Whatever does not have authority in Holy Scripture can be rejected as easily as it can be approved."

    St. Augustine - " Since the Holy Spirit did not want to have these thing written, who will say that it was either this or that? And if anyone will be so rash and bold that he dares to say it, how will he prove it?

    And so forth.
    Faithful Ag
    How long do you want to ignore this user?

    Quote:

    Nice straw man!

    No where did I say or argue that Jesus intended for different versions of Christianity to exist. What Jesus/God want and what Man does have been different since the beginning.
    I asked you multiple times if you see a visible, apostolic church in the New Testament. Your initial answer was a small c catholic church, but that it was just a loose structure in place but it's really pretty murky. When I pressed you on an actual answer you responded with "I think it's pretty clear that early on there were different versions of Christianity". This is precisely what I was responding to.

    In and from the actual New Testament writings, can you show me any instance where having differing versions of Christianity was accepted and tolerated, or encouraged? One example?

    I am not aware of one. Anytime there was dissention or differences we see calls for unity and actions to bring that unity to the whole church. This was my point. No straw man here.

    Quote:

    Here's a good example of the flaw in your your argument. In Genesis we see that Adam and Eve ignored God's will and ate from the Tree of Life. Based on your statement above, we could actual read that as God put the Tree of Life in Garden, intending for Adam and Eve to eat of it and fall. I doubt this is an argument you would try to make, but that shows the weakness in what you wrote.
    Again you are attempting to make arguments on my behalf that I am either not attempting to make or would never make. Then telling me how weak my so-called "argument" that I didn't make in the first place is. What you are doing here would be an example of a straw man. It might be more effective for you to articulate and defend your position, and for me to articulate and defend my position, and through questions of each other's views allow each other to speak. This in fact would help us dialog in an honest and charitable manner.

    Quote:

    However, from Scriptures we do know that as early as Acts 15, a council was needed because there was already a dispute that was necessary to address. We also see Paul oppose Peter in Galatians 2.

    I'm not sure why this is a controversial point?
    The fact that the New Testament has many examples of the church and its leadership consistently demanding correct teaching, understanding, and unity in all things regarding the faith is not controversial. What would be controversial is claiming that there were different versions of Christianity and it was no big deal - and that the apostles and early church leaders were okay with that and did not take action to correct the differences and ensure the correct teachings were communicated (example Acts 15 and Galatians 2). Jesus instituted a church that could handle the issues of the day, not a book. This is evident throughout Christianity from the beginning.

    Quote:

    The argument against Luther and the Book of James is one of my more favorite ones to respond to.

    First, yes early on he took the same view of the Fathers that James (and other books) were more debated and questioned before being accepted. I don't think that's controversial to hold the same view of the Fathers.
    Being that you 'straw-manned' your way into it, I am not surprised.

    You are taking a lot of liberty with the view of the Fathers and their apparently unanimous view that Luther also agreed with. Quite the stretch. Especially given that all of these books were ultimately accepted and included in the traditions and practice of the early church, and the Canon, some thousand to fifteen hundred years before Luther was even born. Quite presumptuous of Luther to think he finally got it right and that generation after generation before him had it wrong.

    Quote:

    Second, Yes he struggled with reconciling James and Paul (Specifically Romans and Galatians). Most christians should struggle with that though.
    I have no struggle reconciling James and Paul.

    Quote:

    Third, As I'm sure you're aware, he slept of a bed of straw. So in his view James was the "every man's" handbook on how to live, not the revolutionary concepts that the Gospels and some of Pauls letters were.
    That is a creative and novel spin.

    Quote:

    Fourth, As I'm sure you know, at the end of Luther's life, he was of the opinion you could burn all of his books except for 3. The Large and Small Catechism and The Bondage of the Will. I believe James is quoted in the Catechisms, and I'm pretty sure in Bondage of the Will.

    So while it sounds like a good argument at the superficial level, it falls apart pretty quickly.
    So you are saying that because Luther didn't want to burn the Catechisms and the Bondage of Will from his deathbed, he never advocated removing the Deuterocanonicals or the 4 books cited from the NT? That his calling the book of James an epistle of straw was actually out of affection for the book and the common man? That he did not rearrange the order of the books of the Bible?

    Actually nothing I have said falls apart. At all.

    Quote:

    Quote:

    The Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books were eventually removed from most Protestant Bibles altogether. My guess is your Bible does not have them. Did you know that the original King James Bible in 1611 included the these OT books, and continued to include them until around 1885 when they were removed from the Bible?

    The primary Lutheran publisher has a great book on The Apocryphal books: The Apocrypha with study notes and all.
    I have these books already in my Bible so I don't need to seek them out or go online and order them separately. Thanks for the link though.

    Quote:

    I'm assuming your aware that to this day the OT in The Orthodox book is different than the OT of Roman Catholics. Neither has officially closed their canon (as far as I'm aware). I believe they also order the Psalms different.

    So while good history, it actually supports my position, not yours.
    I am aware of the fact that the Orthodox have everything contained in the Catholic Bible - along with a few additional writings that were not included in the Catholic Canon. This does not present me with any issue whatsoever, and certainly does not support your position, or Luther's, or any individual for excluding them, moving them, or altering them in any way.

    Quote:

    Quote:

    This begs the question does it not?? WHO, what organization or what man/men, made the decision to go against more than 1,500 to 1,800 years of Christian practice and Tradition and remove these books, and by what authority do they claim to be able to do this?



    We are discussing the Biblical Canon, and if you want to hold to Scripture alone I would think you need to know you have the right books in your Bible and that there is nothing extra or nothing missing. That your Bible is correct and complete.
    See above.

    It's not a concern of mine what others did or didn't do with different versions.

    Including Martin Luther?? This is quite an alarming position to take on such an important issue as the Bible, God's Holy Word. I mean if you are going to hold to Sola Scriptura you better have the correct scriptures IMO.

    Honest questionhow do you know your version is the correct version and not missing something or have something extra? This takes us back to the idea of unity in the faith that we were discussing at the top. Different versions of Christianity were not accepted in the New Testament or early church, so why should they be accepted today?


    Quote:

    Luther, Calvin, Swingly, Wesley, etc. were all working from the same Scriptures, and (presumably) all had access to the writings and interpretations of the church fathers, and yet they all came to different competing conclusions and interpretations of very important theological issues. How is this possible if they are all working from a Sola Scriptura doctrine? Which one got it "right" and which ones got it wrong? How do we know who to listen to?
    Quote:


    Why limit it to these guys? Lets go back further to see what caused the Great Schism.

    Differing views on Papal Supremacy (primary) and secondary issues around the Filioque, etc.

    They were still one Church at that time and had access to the same sources...yet split the Church entirely over those issues. Who was right?

    I don't think either the Eastern or Western church is happy about the schism, and I would love to see the churches completely reunify. However, I wholeheartedly believe that both the Orthodox and Catholic churches and their people are all a part of the One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic faith and have been for over 2,000 years. We have a common foundation for roughly a thousand years and the schism doesn't change that in my view. Both are Apostolic, and both go all the way back to the first days. I watched the Divine Liturgy last Sunday and truly enjoyed itand I was able to follow along with no issues whatsoever.

    Quote:

    But lets talk directly about your point now. Do you know what Luther (and others) wanted more than anything? A true Council to debate and discuss, not a split Church. What did Roman Catholics do?

    First, they put a bounty out to bring in Luther Dead or Alive.
    Despite what you may think, I recognize that the Church was in need of reform. If Luther had endeavored to force reform from within the church he would probably be a saint today. Instead, Luther was the tip of the spear in what would amount to the greatest tragedy in all of Christiandom. It's interesting to think what the world might look like today if Luther had either worked for reform from within, or if that proved impossible sought ecumenism with the Orthodox faith. The reality in my view is that Luther was one man that thought he knew more than both, the East & West.

    Quote:

    Second, we get the Augsburg Diet, which produced one of the better confessions ever written (imo), but that Roman Catholics where wholly unprepared for. Ironically it's assumed to this day that the Vatican has the original copy of the Augsburg Confession that was taken from the Lutherans and never given back. The Lutherans never received a copy of Rome's response, but had people transcribing to recreate it.

    Third, the Council we finally got was Trent, which was a joke. It can be summarized as this: Follow the Roman Catholic teaching or be anathema. Fortunately, Martin Chemnitz wrote one of the best 4 volume rebuttals available to point out all the flaws of that Council.

    So who do I think was right? I'm Lutheran.

    What would have been wonderful to see? A true Council to debate the issues, not death threats.
    I am not completely absolving the Catholic Church in how all of this was handled, but to act like Luther was altruistic, innocent, choir boy humbly approaching reform is a little disingenuous. The first thing that the church did was not put a bounty on Luther's head.

    Quote:

    Quote:

    Please show me where in the Bible it is taught that the Bible is the ONLY infallible source for a Christian? Please give me chapter and verse that prove the Bible is the sole authority, above any other authority.

    Not a cop out. Was limited on time.

    2 Timothy 3:16-17 - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
    I see that scripture is useful or profitable, not that scripture is the ONLY infallible authority for a Christian. At the time 2 Timothy was written some of what ultimately became the scriptures were yet to be written.

    Quote:

    As I also mentioned, Acts 15 shows that as soon as a decision was made, it was written down as the first Epistle.
    I agree completely that the Church made an authoritative decision in ACTS 15 and sent a letter to the people confirming what they decided, but this in no way proves the doctrine of Sola Scriptura or says that every time a decision was made it was always written down.

    If either 2 Tim 3:16-17 or Acts 15 meant what you imply, how do you square that with 2 Thessalonians 2:15?

    "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by epistle?"

    Scripture is telling us to hold fast to traditions taught by word of mouth AND written letter. Both, and there is no assumption or implication there that everything would be written down. Tradition & Scripture go hand in hand and work together, not by themselves apart from the other.

    Quote:

    When Satan tries to tempt Jesus, was does Jesus say? "It is written." Btw, this also shows that Satan is very familiar with the Scriptures.
    Again, Jesus referencing Scripture (OT), and Satan being familiar does not make the case for the Bible to be the sole, infallible, and all encompassing authority for a Christian.

    You still have not adequately addressed the interpretation issue, either. You are Lutheran. How do you know with certainty that Luther got it completely right and Calvin was wrong? Is this important or no? Same Bible, same text, same church Fathers, different doctrine.

    Quote:

    There's also a long history of the Father's setting the Scriptures up as the authority.

    St. Augustine - "Although the Lord Jesus had done many things, not all were written, but those were selected to be written which were thought to be sufficient for salvation of the believers."

    St. Cyril - "Not all things that the Lord did have been written, but what the writers believed would suffice both for morals and for dogmas, in order that we may through the right faith and works, and shining through virtue, come to the kingdom of heaven through Jesus Christ

    St. Chrysostom - "Matthew wrote when the believers in Christ from among the Jews had approached him and asked that he would send them in writing what he had taught them by word of mouth, that it might be preserved."

    Jerome - "Whatever does not have authority in Holy Scripture can be rejected as easily as it can be approved."

    St. Augustine - " Since the Holy Spirit did not want to have these thing written, who will say that it was either this or that? And if anyone will be so rash and bold that he dares to say it, how will he prove it?

    And so forth.
    I would say there is a long history of the Fathers setting the scriptures up as AN authority, not THE authority.

    There is an abundance of writings from the church fathers, and you would be hard pressed to have them making a case for scripture alone, separate and set apart from the traditions and the body of Christ the church. The concept of Sola Scriptura was completely foreign to them. They tested what was written against the Traditions and this is how they determined what was inspired. The Catholic Church has absolutely zero contradictions or problems with anything you have quoted from the Father's. Now did all of the fathers get everything right 100% of the time? No. But neither did Peter. To every single one of your quotes above I say Amen. I agree.

    You still have not made a case for Sola Scriptura. 2 Tim 3:16-17 does not say what you want or need for it to say. Is that the best verse you have to attempt to show that Sola Scriptura is Scriptural?
    bmks270
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    I could have sworn I posted in this thread but it's gone.

    Anyway, it's not clear to me there as a church one could go to that was led by early Christians and be sure it was correct. My understanding is that some of the New Testament letters were specifically correcting the practice or teachings of other Christian congregations, for lack of a better word. Isn't this disunion what brought about the meeting and adoption of a canonical bible to begin with?
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Nah no council decided the canon. Actually the canon is probably the most small o orthodox and small c catholic thing about Christianity. Or was until people started ditching the apocrypha.

    There is a pretty consistent view on what is orthodoxy through the centuries. Most modern denominations are all descended from this common orthodox faith. The schism of today is significant, and the subsequent schisms of the reformation... but we're not *that* far apart.

    Many of the early heresies were pretty wild by comparison, by modern standards.
    swimmerbabe11
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    I dunno, some specific people seem to be trying to be that wild for funsies...







    I mean, not as fun as eating melons to become more holy, but.. we cant all be manicheans
    AgLiving06
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Quote:

    I asked you multiple times if you see a visible, apostolic church in the New Testament. Your initial answer was a small c catholic church, but that it was just a loose structure in place but it's really pretty murky. When I pressed you on an actual answer you responded with "I think it's pretty clear that early on there were different versions of Christianity". This is precisely what I was responding to.

    This continues to be a weird line of reasoning on your part.

    There's no real structure outlined in Scripture. We get some sense in Acts 15 and we see Pauls relationship with Timothy (and maybe Luke), but nowhere does Scripture lay out how Church structure should be. It's not controversial.

    Again, Acts 15 is a nice easy start of seeing disagreement.

    We also have 1 Corinthians 1: 10-17

    "10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul";another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas[b]"; still another, "I follow Christ."

    13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius,15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospelnot with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."

    So just within Scriptures, we have 2 examples of division involving the apostles. And yet you're surprised when they died and the next generation took over that there were more splits.

    Quote:

    In and from the actual New Testament writings, can you show me any instance where having differing versions of Christianity was accepted and tolerated, or encouraged? One example?

    Straw man. Once again, accepting reality doesn't mean it was right/wrong.

    Quote:

    Again you are attempting to make arguments on my behalf that I am either not attempting to make or would never make. Then telling me how weak my so-called "argument" that I didn't make in the first place is. What you are doing here would be an example of a straw man. It might be more effective for you to articulate and defend your position, and for me to articulate and defend my position, and through questions of each other's views allow each other to speak. This in fact would help us dialog in an honest and charitable manner.


    The entire premise of this section by you is that I need to somehow prove that Jesus and/or Scriptures somehow approve of differences in understanding of Scripture. Since I never made the claim, it's not something I'll be attempting to answer.

    Quote:

    Being that you 'straw-manned' your way into it, I am not surprised.

    You are taking a lot of liberty with the view of the Fathers and their apparently unanimous view that Luther also agreed with. Quite the stretch. Especially given that all of these books were ultimately accepted and included in the traditions and practice of the early church, and the Canon, some thousand to fifteen hundred years before Luther was even born. Quite presumptuous of Luther to think he finally got it right and that generation after generation before him had it wrong.

    Another weird response. There's very few things that had "unanimous agreement" among the Fathers, nor did I claim that. You seem very concerned with painting a picture of the Father's that doesn't exist.

    It's presumptuous of Luther and others to go "back to the sources?" I mean...it's not like Rome would lie to anybody right or use forged documents to achieve the goals they had right?

    Quote:

    I have no struggle reconciling James and Paul.

    Congrats? I don't have any struggle with it either.

    Quote:

    So you are saying that because Luther didn't want to burn the Catechisms and the Bondage of Will from his deathbed, he never advocated removing the Deuterocanonicals or the 4 books cited from the NT? That his calling the book of James an epistle of straw was actually out of affection for the book and the common man? That he did not rearrange the order of the books of the Bible?

    Actually nothing I have said falls apart. At all.

    Just a weird take from you. Not even sure how to respond to this so I won't.

    Quote:

    I have these books already in my Bible so I don't need to seek them out or go online and order them separately. Thanks for the link though.

    Congrats!

    Quote:

    I am aware of the fact that the Orthodox have everything contained in the Catholic Bible - along with a few additional writings that were not included in the Catholic Canon. This does not present me with any issue whatsoever, and certainly does not support your position, or Luther's, or any individual for excluding them, moving them, or altering them in any way.

    It doesn't need to support anything of mine. You're claim was to the wonders of the King James 1611 Bible. That Bible is likely missing books that others have in their Bibles. So the claim falls apart.

    Quote:

    Including Martin Luther?? This is quite an alarming position to take on such an important issue as the Bible, God's Holy Word. I mean if you are going to hold to Sola Scriptura you better have the correct scriptures IMO.

    Honest question how do you know your version is the correct version and not missing something or have something extra? This takes us back to the idea of unity in the faith that we were discussing at the top. Different versions of Christianity were not accepted in the New Testament or early church, so why should they be accepted today?

    Oh the outrage!!! Won't someone think of the children

    Luther didn't remove books. If others do, that's at their own risk. That's not my fault and frankly low on my list of concerns. You also continue to show a fundamental lack of understanding of Sola Scriptura, but I can tell that's not going to change in this discussion.

    Quote:

    I don't think either the Eastern or Western church is happy about the schism, and I would love to see the churches completely reunify. However, I wholeheartedly believe that both the Orthodox and Catholic churches and their people are all a part of the One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic faith and have been for over 2,000 years. We have a common foundation for roughly a thousand years and the schism doesn't change that in my view. Both are Apostolic, and both go all the way back to the first days. I watched the Divine Liturgy last Sunday and truly enjoyed itand I was able to follow along with no issues whatsoever.

    You can think that, but let me ask you a simple question. Can you walk into an Orthodox Church, tell the Priest you are Roman Catholic and take Communion? We both know the answer and it's not yes.

    Quote:

    Despite what you may think, I recognize that the Church was in need of reform. If Luther had endeavored to force reform from within the church he would probably be a saint today. Instead, Luther was the tip of the spear in what would amount to the greatest tragedy in all of Christiandom. It's interesting to think what the world might look like today if Luther had either worked for reform from within, or if that proved impossible sought ecumenism with the Orthodox faith. The reality in my view is that Luther was one man that thought he knew more than both, the East & West.

    This is just such a false understanding of the timeline. Lets look at key dates:

    Martin Luther wrote the 95 Theses in 1517.
    He was excommunicated by Rome in 1521.

    He was attempting to reform. They tried to kill him for it. A common theme when you went against the Pope for some odd reason.

    Quote:

    am not completely absolving the Catholic Church in how all of this was handled, but to act like Luther was altruistic, innocent, choir boy humbly approaching reform is a little disingenuous. The first thing that the church did was not put a bounty on Luther's head.

    Where did I make that claim about Luther?

    Quote:

    I agree completely that the Church made an authoritative decision in ACTS 15 and sent a letter to the people confirming what they decided, but this in no way proves the doctrine of Sola Scriptura or says that every time a decision was made it was always written down.

    If either 2 Tim 3:16-17 or Acts 15 meant what you imply, how do you square that with 2 Thessalonians 2:15?

    "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by epistle?"

    Scripture is telling us to hold fast to traditions taught by word of mouth AND written letter. Both, and there is no assumption or implication there that everything would be written down. Tradition & Scripture go hand in hand and work together, not by themselves apart from the other.

    Another odd argument primary driven by your misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura.

    There's no issue with 2 Thessalonians. The only way for there to be an issue is to argue that somehow the Traditions taught by word of mouth somehow differ or exceed that of Scriptures.

    making that claim would seem to violate 2 Timothy and since I'm not making that claim, no issues.

    Quote:

    I would say there is a long history of the Fathers setting the scriptures up as AN authority, not THE authority.

    Which means you either have to claim that Scriptures are incomplete (though the canon is closed) or that there can be errors.

    Bold move.


    Ok...So I've replied to you at length. It's clear you are going to to stick to your misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura and the Reformation in general.

    I can continue to respond, but those are two pretty glaring misunderstandings that will hamper any real discussion moving forward.

    Have a good night and God Bless.



    Faithful Ag
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Quote:

    Quote:

    I asked you multiple times if you see a visible, apostolic church in the New Testament. Your initial answer was a small c catholic church, but that it was just a loose structure in place but it's really pretty murky. When I pressed you on an actual answer you responded with "I think it's pretty clear that early on there were different versions of Christianity". This is precisely what I was responding to.
    This continues to be a weird line of reasoning on your part.

    There's no real structure outlined in Scripture. We get some sense in Acts 15 and we see Paul's relationship with Timothy (and maybe Luke), but nowhere does Scripture lay out how Church structure should be. It's not controversial.

    Again, Acts 15 is a nice easy start of seeing disagreement.

    We also have 1 Corinthians 1: 10-17

    "10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul";another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas[b]"; still another, "I follow Christ."

    13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius,15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."

    So just within Scriptures, we have 2 examples of division involving the apostles. And yet you're surprised when they died and the next generation took over that there were more splits.
    My line of reasoning is that there was clearly a visible and apostolic church evident in the New Testament, and this original Christian church demanded and took action to maintain unity in the teachings of the faith. The foundation of the Church was laid by Christ on the apostles and disciples. A foundation strong enough to stand the test of time and to never cease to support her people throughout all the ages and to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). While we may not see the structure formally outlined in Scripture we have clear examples of apostolic succession in both the OT and NT which is why the idea was so naturally accepted (see a few examples below).

    Every time that we see any type of disagreement in the scriptures we also see the leadership of the church come together to articulate what teaching is correct and call all the "churches" to unity. There were not "different versions of Christianity" as you stated there were times where some had it wrong, and times where there was disagreement, but always we see a call to unity and action taken that the Church be one in mind and thought and spirit.

    Acts 1: 20-26 May another take his office (Bishop-rick)...Therefore, it is necessary one of the men...become with us a witness to his resurrection... and Matthias was counted with the eleven apostles.

    Acts 6: 2-6 Men chosen and appointed to ministry, then presented to the apostles who prayed over them and laid hands upon them (ordained them).

    Acts 9: 17-19 Following Paul's blinding encounter with Christ, Ananias was sent to lay hands on Paul, and he was baptized.

    Acts 14: 23 They appointed presbyters for them in each church

    Acts 15: 22-28 The apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send themto proclaim by word of mouth it is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us

    These are a few examples in Acts but there are numerous examples throughout the NT and the idea of authoritative succession is also found in the OT.

    Quote:


    Quote:

    In and from the actual New Testament writings, can you show me any instance where having differing versions of Christianity was accepted and tolerated, or encouraged? One example?
    Straw man. Once again, accepting reality doesn't mean it was right/wrong.
    The significant difference is that I am not accepting that there is differing versions of Christianity.
    You are. There is only one truth and one Gospel.

    Now the question of IF the Catholic Church has it correct, or it's the Orthodox, or it's the Lutherans is the question begging for an answer. But to claim there are various versions and that we just have to accept that reality well, I respectfully disagree.

    Quote:

    Quote:

    Again you are attempting to make arguments on my behalf that I am either not attempting to make or would never make. Then telling me how weak my so-called "argument" that I didn't make in the first place is. What you are doing here would be an example of a straw man. It might be more effective for you to articulate and defend your position, and for me to articulate and defend my position, and through questions of each other's views allow each other to speak. This in fact would help us dialog in an honest and charitable manner.
    The entire premise of this section by you is that I need to somehow prove that Jesus and/or Scriptures somehow approve of differences in understanding of Scripture. Since I never made the claim, it's not something I'll be attempting to answer.
    Not exactly. You took the position that historically, there were different versions of ChristianityBelow is my original question and the actual quoted response that you wrote:
    Quote:

    Quote:

    Faithful Ag wrote:
    Would you agree that there was a visible Christian church in the earliest days of Christianity? One where if someone wanted to join the church they could find "it", and have confidence that in fact found the true church of Christ?
    AgLiving06 responded:
    No, I think it's pretty clear that early on there were different versions of Christianity that existed. Hence why there were councils, why there were disagreements on what writings were correct, etc.

    I don't think that makes it a problem though and not terrible different than today where people are still trying to understand the scriptures. We just have a better starting point.
    My point has always been and remains that nowhere in the early church historically, nor in the Scriptures, do we ever see "different versions of Christianity." When something was being taught in error, or when questions of faith and practice were seemingly different, the church took action to ensure that the faith was properly preserved and that the whole Christian community knew what was correct.

    Quote:

    Quote:

    Being that you 'straw-manned' your way into it, I am not surprised.

    You are taking a lot of liberty with the view of the Fathers and their apparently unanimous view that Luther also agreed with. Quite the stretch. Especially given that all of these books were ultimately accepted and included in the traditions and practice of the early church, and the Canon, some thousand to fifteen hundred years before Luther was even born. Quite presumptuous of Luther to think he finally got it right and that generation after generation before him had it wrong.
    Another weird response. There's very few things that had "unanimous agreement" among the Fathers, nor did I claim that. You seem very concerned with painting a picture of the Father's that doesn't exist.

    It's presumptuous of Luther and others to go "back to the sources?" I mean...it's not like Rome would lie to anybody right or use forged documents to achieve the goals they had right?
    One thing the Church Fathers did agree on unanimously was apostolic succession.

    For context of my third "weird response" :
    Quote:

    Quote:

    Faithful Ag said:
    You say there was little disagreement (on the first 7 councils) among the reformers...are you talking about their views on what books belong in the Biblical Canon or other "extras"? I don't think Martin Luther's views on the book of James, or Hebrews, or Revelation, or the 7 books he wanted removed from the OT would count as "little disagreement". Unfortunately, Protestants removed those 7 books and went against the 1,000+ years of their inclusion in the Scriptures.
    AgLiving06 said
    Unfortunately, you are once again incorrect.

    First, Martin Luther was willing to recognize that, like the Fathers, several books were held as controversial. He's one of the few willing to acknowledge that they were controversial, yet held to be part of the NT. Nothing wrong with that, especially in a time when they were dealing with forgeries from Rome.

    Second, He never removed them. To say so is to show ignorance of the history. Since you are surely aware that Martin Luther did not remove a single book, you must have confused him with some random organization that came much later.
    So I never said Luther was the one who removed the books, only that he wanted too.
    And then later you said this:
    Quote:

    The argument against Luther and the Book of James is one of my more favorite ones to respond to.

    First, yes early on he took the same view of the Fathers that James (and other books) were more debated and questioned before being accepted. I don't think that's controversial to hold the same view of the Fathers.
    This is what I was referring too. You make the case that Martin Luther was just in agreement and held the same view of the Fathers, which is why I called that "quite a stretch".
    Quote:

    Quote:

    Quote:

    AgLiving06 said
    Third, As I'm sure you're aware, he slept of a bed of straw. So in his view James was the "every man's" handbook on how to live, not the revolutionary concepts that the Gospels and some of Pauls letters were.

    Fourth, As I'm sure you know, at the end of Luther's life, he was of the opinion you could burn all of his books except for 3. The Large and Small Catechism and The Bondage of the Will. I believe James is quoted in the Catechisms, and I'm pretty sure in Bondage of the Will.

    So while it sounds like a good argument at the superficial level, it falls apart pretty quickly.

    Faithful Ag said
    So you are saying that because Luther didn't want to burn the Catechisms and the Bondage of Will from his deathbed, he never advocated removing the Deuterocanonicals or the 4 books cited from the NT? That his calling the book of James an epistle of straw was actually out of affection for the book and the common man? That he did not rearrange the order of the books of the Bible?

    Actually nothing I have said falls apart. At all.
    Just a weird take from you. Not even sure how to respond to this so I won't.
    Perhaps putting these closer together will help put this "weird take" into context.

    Quote:

    Quote:

    I am aware of the fact that the Orthodox have everything contained in the Catholic Bible - along with a few additional writings that were not included in the Catholic Canon. This does not present me with any issue whatsoever, and certainly does not support your position, or Luther's, or any individual for excluding them, moving them, or altering them in any way.
    It doesn't need to support anything of mine. You're claim was to the wonders of the King James 1611 Bible. That Bible is likely missing books that others have in their Bibles. So the claim falls apart.
    No, my claim was not to the wonders of the 1611 KJV my claim was to the undisputable fact that for over 1500 years the Deuterocanonicals were in fact included in the Christian canon and that at some point after the Reformation they were removed from the Protestant canon and that fact doesn't seem to bother or concern you or most Protestant Christians, who claim to also hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

    My above quote was to respond to your attempt to discredit Catholic and Orthodox Canons - which both contain these books which are excluded in Protestant Bibles. Because both Catholics and Orthodox are apostolic in nature and neither subscribe to Sola Scripture alone there is no issue here. Nothing falls apart.

    Quote:

    Quote:

    Including Martin Luther?? This is quite an alarming position to take on such an important issue as the Bible, God's Holy Word. I mean if you are going to hold to Sola Scriptura you better have the correct scriptures IMO.

    Honest question how do you know your version is the correct version and not missing something or have something extra? This takes us back to the idea of unity in the faith that we were discussing at the top. Different versions of Christianity were not accepted in the New Testament or early church, so why should they be accepted today?
    Luther didn't remove books. If others do, that's at their own risk. That's not my fault and frankly low on my list of concerns. You also continue to show a fundamental lack of understanding of Sola Scriptura, but I can tell that's not going to change in this discussion.
    You continue to say I have a fundamental lack of understanding of Sola Scriptura, but you have yet to articulate where my understanding is flawed. It is quite difficult to change my opinion if nothing is being offered to help me better understand the issue.

    Please tell me where I am off base here or what I have wrong here:
    Sola Scriptura is the belief that the Bible Alone is the sole infallible source or rule of authority for Christian faith and practice. The Bible is sufficient in that it is all that is necessary for faith and practice. The Bible is the final or supreme authority, that it is perspicuous, and that the Bible is self-authenticating and interprets itself.

    Quote:

    You can think that, but let me ask you a simple question. Can you walk into an Orthodox Church, tell the Priest you are Roman Catholic and take Communion? We both know the answer and it's not yes.
    The Orthodox Eucharist is absolutely a valid and holy sacrament and if I attended the Divine Liturgy I would absolutely be in the physical presence of Christ in that moment, but no I would not present myself to receive. Similarly, I would not receive bread and wine or grape juice at any Protestant or non-Catholic service.
    Quote:

    Quote:

    Despite what you may think, I recognize that the Church was in need of reform. If Luther had endeavored to force reform from within the church he would probably be a saint today. Instead, Luther was the tip of the spear in what would amount to the greatest tragedy in all of Christiandom. It's interesting to think what the world might look like today if Luther had either worked for reform from within, or if that proved impossible sought ecumenism with the Orthodox faith. The reality in my view is that Luther was one man that thought he knew more than both, the East & West.

    This is just such a false understanding of the timeline. Lets look at key dates:

    Martin Luther wrote the 95 Theses in 1517.
    He was excommunicated by Rome in 1521.

    He was attempting to reform. They tried to kill him for it. A common theme when you went against the Pope for some odd reason.
    Four years was not really a significant amount of time back in those days and in that environment. Also, Luther was not exactly open minded in his views saying, "In these matters of faith, to be sure, each Christian is for himself pope and church." I'm not trying to get into a Luther vs. Church debate here FWIW. That presents a whole different can of worms. Trying to stay on the topic of how Christians are impacted today with regard to the Canon and the role of Scriptures if that matters.

    Quote:

    Quote:

    I agree completely that the Church made an authoritative decision in ACTS 15 and sent a letter to the people confirming what they decided, but this in no way proves the doctrine of Sola Scriptura or says that every time a decision was made it was always written down.

    If either 2 Tim 3:16-17 or Acts 15 meant what you imply, how do you square that with 2 Thessalonians 2:15?

    "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by epistle?"

    Scripture is telling us to hold fast to traditions taught by word of mouth AND written letter. Both, and there is no assumption or implication there that everything would be written down. Tradition & Scripture go hand in hand and work together, not by themselves apart from the other.

    Another odd argument primary driven by your misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura.

    There's no issue with 2 Thessalonians. The only way for there to be an issue is to argue that somehow the Traditions taught by word of mouth somehow differ or exceed that of Scriptures.

    making that claim would seem to violate 2 Timothy and since I'm not making that claim, no issues.
    This was literally the ONLY thing you have offered in this entire discussion to try and support your position of Sola Scriptura. And there is nothing in the Scriptures that tells us that everything that was taught with authority is explicitly found in Scripture. I'm making the point that the actual Scriptures instruct us as Christians to hold fast to the teachings, whether taught orally (Tradition) or by letter (Scripture). The reality is that there were letters written by Paul and the other apostles that are not a part of our Bible today.

    Quote:

    Quote:

    I would say there is a long history of the Fathers setting the scriptures up as AN authority, not THE authority.

    Which means you either have to claim that Scriptures are incomplete (though the canon is closed) or that there can be errors.

    Bold move.
    Check your premises.

    Quote:

    Ok...So I've replied to you at length. It's clear you are going to to stick to your misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura and the Reformation in general.

    I can continue to respond, but those are two pretty glaring misunderstandings that will hamper any real discussion moving forward.

    Have a good night and God Bless.
    Thank you. Again, if you would like to explain and articulate my misunderstandings on Sola Scriptura I would be glad to engage in a real and sincere discussion moving forward. Either way, I appreciate the response. God Bless.
    Woody2006
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    The idea that the writings that came from decades of passing stories around like a game of telephone and were ordered together centuries after-the-fact could be a reliable source of information is asinine.
    AgLiving06
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    I thought about responding to most of what you wrote, but it's really not relevant. In most cases you're picking odd stances to take and going back and forth isn't worthwhile for either of us.

    So let's hit this one:

    Quote:

    You continue to say I have a fundamental lack of understanding of Sola Scriptura, but you have yet to articulate where my understanding is flawed. It is quite difficult to change my opinion if nothing is being offered to help me better understand the issue.

    Please tell me where I am off base here or what I have wrong here:
    Sola Scriptura is the belief that the Bible Alone is the sole infallible source or rule of authority for Christian faith and practice. The Bible is sufficient in that it is all that is necessary for faith and practice. The Bible is the final or supreme authority, that it is perspicuous, and that the Bible is self-authenticating and interprets itself.

    You do a well enough job putting the words on paper as to what Sola Scriptura means, but then completely foul up the application of it.

    So lets look at the example you claim causes problems:

    Quote:

    Including Martin Luther?? This is quite an alarming position to take on such an important issue as the Bible, God's Holy Word. I mean if you are going to hold to Sola Scriptura you better have the correct scriptures IMO.

    In order for this to be an issue for Sola Scriptura, you have to assert that the Church is in some aspects above the Bible and/or God.

    Why do I make that claim? Because you're argument boils down to a claim that it wasn't God that decided what was Scriptural, but that the "Church" (which is still undefined) determined what came from God, seemingly independent from Him. That's the only way Sola Scriptura doesn't work. If you're claim is that the Church is somehow above or supersedes the Scriptures.

    Yet we know that "All Scripture is God-Breathed" (2 Tim 3:16).

    From a Sola Scriptura standpoint, we can trust the Scriptures, that when God, through Paul, says the Scriptures are from Him, that He means it. That when the early Christians, were trying to figure out what was authentic, they were guided by God.

    So again, you do a good job of stating the definition, but you either don't want to understand what you've written or more likely, start with the premise that it's wrong and won't try to honestly understand it. Given your other responses, I'm assuming it's probably option 2.

    Quote:

    Four years was not really a significant amount of time back in those days and in that environment. Also, Luther was not exactly open minded in his views saying, "In these matters of faith, to be sure, each Christian is for himself pope and church." I'm not trying to get into a Luther vs. Church debate here FWIW. That presents a whole different can of worms. Trying to stay on the topic of how Christians are impacted today with regard to the Canon and the role of Scriptures if that matters.

    Ok, I had to respond to this too.

    First, it was after 4 years that Rome kicked him out. So you can't blame him for it being "not really a significant amount of time."

    Second, Not sure what quote you're trying to say, but I'll need a lot more citation to respond. I did a quick google search and the first ping was to catholic.com which has a history of being very generous with quotes that support the catholic position.

    Third, What Luther was 100% consistent on is that the majority of Priests in that time couldn't actually read the Scriptures. The memorized the liturgy, but had never read the actual Scriptures. So his point was that when people read the Scriptures, they would have serious issues with what the Popes in the middle ages were trying to claim. Again, we can look to the "counter reformation" to see that even Rome realized something had to change. Trent was a disaster, but at least it was an attempt.
    Ordhound04
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Woody2006 said:

    The idea that the writings that came from decades of passing stories around like a game of telephone and were ordered together centuries after-the-fact could be a reliable source of information is asinine.


    We have early manuscripts from before they were "ordered together". It wasn't a game of telephone since the people who knew Christ in the flesh were alive when the New Testament scriptures were written.

    I mean it would be one thing if they were oral tradition. Passed down for 400 years then written down Just before canonization, but they were written down when the apostles were still alive. Heck we could almost compile the NT scripture from the notes made by the apostolic and early church fathers.
    Faithful Ag
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Quote:

    Quote:

    You continue to say I have a fundamental lack of understanding of Sola Scriptura, but you have yet to articulate where my understanding is flawed. It is quite difficult to change my opinion if nothing is being offered to help me better understand the issue.

    Please tell me where I am off base here or what I have wrong here:
    Sola Scriptura is the belief that the Bible Alone is the sole infallible source or rule of authority for Christian faith and practice. The Bible is sufficient in that it is all that is necessary for faith and practice. The Bible is the final or supreme authority, that it is perspicuous, and that the Bible is self-authenticating and interprets itself.

    You do a well enough job putting the words on paper as to what Sola Scriptura means, but then completely foul up the application of it.

    From my view I think that is one of the fatal flaws to Sola Scriptura - the application of it. The same texts of the Bible are interpreted to mean different things by different denominations and individuals. Many twist the scriptures to their own destruction, although they may not realize what they are doing.
    Quote:

    So lets look at the example you claim causes problems:

    At the end of this post I will provide some questions to help make my point. Hopefully you will respond to them.
    Quote:

    Quote:

    I mean if you are going to hold to Sola Scriptura you better have the correct scriptures IMO.

    In order for this to be an issue for Sola Scriptura, you have to assert that the Church is in some aspects above the Bible and/or God.

    My point was that IF you are going to hold to the Bible ALONE as your sole and supreme rule of faith - first you would need to be absolutely certain your Bible is indeed complete (not missing any books and nothing extra either).

    It is not possible for either the Bible or the Church to be "above God." And it's not so much that the church is above the Bible, but rather the only way the Scriptures could be recognized as the inspired word of God was through the Church - and testing what was written against what was taught and practiced throughout the church. The church discerned and illuminates the scriptures and likewise the scriptures illuminate the church.

    I think many Protestants come with the perspective of Bible first or Bible only, and as a result subjugate the Church to a lesser status. Both are of God and therefore they witness and testify truth and to each other beautifully.

    The Bible without the Church would just be a book of old writings. The Church today without the Scriptures could be completely off the rails. The two work together and cannot and do not contradict each other in any way.

    This is what makes the question of the canon, and how we got the Bible, such an interesting and important topic. I'm not sure most Protestants really want to think critically about it because Christian history does not support today's Protestant canon on what is Scripture.

    Quote:

    Why do I make that claim? Because you're argument boils down to a claim that it wasn't God that decided what was Scriptural, but that the "Church" (which is still undefined) determined what came from God, seemingly independent from Him. That's the only way Sola Scriptura doesn't work. If you're claim is that the Church is somehow above or supersedes the Scriptures.

    My argument does no such thing - that is your presumption and projection getting in the way again. You are not really making any kind of case or defense for your position. You are just telling me I am wrong and taking stabs at reasons why.

    For example: you say that it was God that determined what was Scripture. HOW and WHEN did God do this? Please be specific.

    Also, you say the "church" is still undefined. What do you mean by this? I can show you the one, holy, universal, and apostolic Church from Scripture complete with apostolic succession, the sacraments, and authority. Can you show me when this church passed away or ceased to exist?
    Quote:

    Yet we know that "All Scripture is God-Breathed" (2 Tim 3:16).
    Agreed. All Scripture is God Breathed - But how do WE know, today, what is and what is not Scripture? There is disagreement on this issue today. I do not believe the Bible alone is my only source for truth so this is not a major issue for me - but for those who hold to Bible Alone this seems fundamentally critical.

    By what authority can you claim to have the correct and complete Scriptures? The table of contents in the Bible is not a part of the inspired Word of God.

    Quote:

    From a Sola Scriptura standpoint, we can trust the Scriptures, that when God, through Paul, says the Scriptures are from Him, that He means it. That when the early Christians, were trying to figure out what was authentic, they were guided by God.

    Now this is getting a little closer to the target, but can you tell me exactly which writings Paul was referring to at the time? I agree the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in recognizing the Scriptures, but that included the Deuterocanonicals. The only reason we can trust the Scriptures, and what Paul wrote, is because the Church testifies to the Scriptures. Without the Church you have nothing to authenticate or validate what was written. Does this make the Church greater?

    Quote:

    So again, you do a good job of stating the definition, but you either don't want to understand what you've written or more likely, start with the premise that it's wrong and won't try to honestly understand it. Given your other responses, I'm assuming it's probably option 2.

    I understand what I have written. I understand the claims of Sola Scriptura. I think you are the one that is starting with a premise that Sola Scriptura must be correct, and that premise is fatally flawed in my view. Are you able to show me otherwise? Can you adequately address my questions?

    I hold that Sola Scriptura is not workable, is not historical, and is itself not scriptural. Let's start with just one direct question on each of my claims:


    On Un-Workable :
    1. If the Bible is the only infallible authority we have or need, how is it possible that so many people interpret the same passages and texts and come to different conclusions?
    (If your response is that this is not your concern because YOU are correct in your interpretation - you still have not adequately addressed the question. The same Biblical texts, presumably guided by the same Holy Spirit, are leading thoughtful, honest, scholarly and discerning people to different conclusions and beliefs. This is why I said earlier this issue is not a question of the infallibility of the actual text of the Bible, but rather a question of how the Bible is being interpreted by the reader. If the interpretation is off base the fact that the Bible is infallible becomes meaningless because the person is in error.)

    On Un-Historical:
    1. All of the churches that have an ongoing and continuous claim to apostolic succession going all the way back to the original 12 apostles unanimously include the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books in their Canons. How can Protestants today exclude these books thus going against the consensus of the apostolic church? Furthermore, how can one then claim that this (incomplete) book should become the sole, infallible source for Christian faith and practice, supreme and independent to all others?

    On Un-Scriptural:
    1. If Sola Scriptura is Biblical/Scriptural - please provide the verse or verses that teach that Scripture is the ONLY infallible source, and above any other source for teaching faith and practice for a Christian. Can you point me to the verse that says no other source or teachings can be held in the same esteem as the Holy Scripture in the written form?
    (Please do not give me a commentary here about your interpretation and why we can have confidence in this or that - just provide the chapter and verse from the actual Bible that supports your position. You believe in Sola Scriptura - please defend your position accordingly).

    Peace in Christ.
    Page 1 of 2
     
    ×
    subscribe Verify your student status
    See Subscription Benefits
    Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.