10andBOUNCE said:
People absolutely have the choice to defy God's commandments and sin, just like Adam and Eve. No reformer will deny that.
So we can choose to sin but can't choose God? Then how was the sin ever a choice?
Question for Reformed/Sola Scriptura believers
12,872 Views |
209 Replies |
Last: 4 mo ago by Quo Vadis?
So we can choose to sin but can't choose God? Then how was the sin ever a choice?
10andBOUNCE said:
How would the non-reformed break down John 6:44?
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."
The Greek word translated as "draw" is helkuo, which means "to drag".
It says all that come to Jesus were drawn by the Father. It does not say everyone drawn by the Father ended up choosing Jesus. We believe that all men are drawn to Jesus by the Father (in various way depending upon how much exposure to Christ they've received I.e. natural law) and some ultimately accept, while others turn away.
Interesting you choose John 6. I assume you do not believe the "eat my body, drink my blood" part applies literally but this "dragging" to Jesus, robbing us from a choice in the matter, must be?
CrackerJackAg said:Mostly Peaceful said:
Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture. The Bible is the sole authority. It makes more sense in the context of the reformation. The 5 solas were a rejection of the man made traditions instituted by the RCC.
The term canon, from a Hebrew-Greek word meaning "cane" or "measuring rod," passed into Christian usage to mean "norm" or "rule of faith." The Church Fathers of the 4th century ce first employed it in reference to the definitive,…
The Orthodox Church put together a Biblical Canon for this exact purpose and had this covered 1700 years ago.
t's a creation inspired by The Church to frame what it is to be Christian. If you contradict these VERY CORE beliefs then it isn't Christian. It was not intended as a stand alone set of documents to exist outside of Church Tradition. Church Tradition in line with the Scriptures is important.
I'm late to the party because of the hurricane, but this is false. The orthodox church did not "put together a Biblical Canon." There's literally no evidence of this.
But it runs into all kinds of issues if you try to take this line of reasoning.
For example, What infallible group put together the Old Testament? Why aren't you listening to their interpretation? Shoot, why did Jesus Himself not listen to the Pharisees? They were sitting in the seat of Moses.
That Rome and the EO try and create this weird elevated manmade church structure has always been odd.
May not have understood the question. Eating and drinking are essential to any physical life. Belief in Christ's sacrificial work through his body and blood on the cross is essential for eternal life.
We not only can choose to sin, but we are SLAVES to sin. It is the only option we ever will choose without the regenerative work of God.The Banned said:10andBOUNCE said:
People absolutely have the choice to defy God's commandments and sin, just like Adam and Eve. No reformer will deny that.
So we can choose to sin but can't choose God? Then how was the sin ever a choice?
Now do 1 Timothy 2 3-4 without adding "all kind of " to the "all people"10andBOUNCE said:
How would the non-reformed break down John 6:44?
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."
The Greek word translated as "draw" is helkuo, which means "to drag".
"This is good and please God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth".
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
10andBOUNCE said:We not only can choose to sin, but we are SLAVES to sin. It is the only option we ever will choose without the regenerative work of God.The Banned said:10andBOUNCE said:
People absolutely have the choice to defy God's commandments and sin, just like Adam and Eve. No reformer will deny that.
So we can choose to sin but can't choose God? Then how was the sin ever a choice?
If we are enslaved to sin, and no alternative is offered to us by God, then how did we choose it? Because under your view, God did not offer it to this certain subset of sinners. If He would have, they would have had no choice but to accept His saving grace. He can snap His fingers and save everyone. Therefore, He is actively choosing to damn them.
You can act as if "passing over" isn't God intentionally damning them to Hell, but it doesn't pass the smell test. No different than someone standing by as an infant drowns in 6 inches of water is intentionally letting them die, God has ALL THE POWER in the equation and refuses to use it. I reject this.
Our view is that we are drowning but God is offering ALL of us help and we have to choose to accept His help. He initiates. We respond. This is historical and logical. It's only your fear of "works" that would keep you from coming to the same conclusion. Hence the reason for once saved, always saved and many other theological differences.
Regardless, we read the same Bible. We come to different conclusions. Therefore the words in that book are not the only authority. There is an authority that goes hand in glove with the Bible, which makes sense, as they were the ones who determined what was and wasn't scripture in the first place.
AgLiving06 said:CrackerJackAg said:Mostly Peaceful said:
Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture. The Bible is the sole authority. It makes more sense in the context of the reformation. The 5 solas were a rejection of the man made traditions instituted by the RCC.
The term canon, from a Hebrew-Greek word meaning "cane" or "measuring rod," passed into Christian usage to mean "norm" or "rule of faith." The Church Fathers of the 4th century ce first employed it in reference to the definitive,…
The Orthodox Church put together a Biblical Canon for this exact purpose and had this covered 1700 years ago.
t's a creation inspired by The Church to frame what it is to be Christian. If you contradict these VERY CORE beliefs then it isn't Christian. It was not intended as a stand alone set of documents to exist outside of Church Tradition. Church Tradition in line with the Scriptures is important.
I'm late to the party because of the hurricane, but this is false. The orthodox church did not "put together a Biblical Canon." There's literally no evidence of this.
But it runs into all kinds of issues if you try to take this line of reasoning.
For example, What infallible group put together the Old Testament? Why aren't you listening to their interpretation? Shoot, why did Jesus Himself not listen to the Pharisees? They were sitting in the seat of Moses.
That Rome and the EO try and create this weird elevated manmade church structure has always been odd.
No evidence? There was a whole council were it was parsed out.
You do know the OT times had biblical conflicts as well. Hence Pharisees and sadducees. So they were having the same discussions as the early Church did.
As to why Jesus just didn't listen to them? Just an odd question. Why wouldn't God take orders from men?
Let me ask you this: if the Bible was always the end all, be all, why is there zero evidence that the apostles were writing anything down at Jesus' command? Seems to me if all we needed was our Bible that Jesus' would have had the foresight to have it all written down as soon as possible instead of the apostles doing it under the inspiration of the Spirit a couple decades later.
Jesus was, however, very emphatic that they go out and teach others and spread the word, which they did immediately. I don't see how it's hard to reach the conclusion that He gave them teaching authority, not a book
AgLiving06 said:CrackerJackAg said:Mostly Peaceful said:
Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture. The Bible is the sole authority. It makes more sense in the context of the reformation. The 5 solas were a rejection of the man made traditions instituted by the RCC.
The term canon, from a Hebrew-Greek word meaning "cane" or "measuring rod," passed into Christian usage to mean "norm" or "rule of faith." The Church Fathers of the 4th century ce first employed it in reference to the definitive,…
The Orthodox Church put together a Biblical Canon for this exact purpose and had this covered 1700 years ago.
t's a creation inspired by The Church to frame what it is to be Christian. If you contradict these VERY CORE beliefs then it isn't Christian. It was not intended as a stand alone set of documents to exist outside of Church Tradition. Church Tradition in line with the Scriptures is important.
I'm late to the party because of the hurricane, but this is false. The orthodox church did not "put together a Biblical Canon." There's literally no evidence of this.
But it runs into all kinds of issues if you try to take this line of reasoning.
For example, What infallible group put together the Old Testament? Why aren't you listening to their interpretation? Shoot, why did Jesus Himself not listen to the Pharisees? They were sitting in the seat of Moses.
That Rome and the EO try and create this weird elevated manmade church structure has always been odd.
There is absolutely evidence of this. I don't know which part you're fuzzy on; that the body who put together the canon of the Bible wasn't the orthodox or Catholic Church; or that the canon of the Bible was never actually put together and just came to be like the 10 commandments.
Jesus Christ didn't have to listen to the Pharisees, he was God incarnate; the fulfillment of the law which the Pharisees practices. But even HE said do what they tell you to, but don't do what they do, because of their legitimate authority.
Except for maybe Augustine, where was the doctrine of double predestination for the first 1500 years of Christianity?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
How does one navigate the idea of single predestination? If God elects some, don't you have to deal with the other side of the coin? It is either the positive/positive or positive/negative view. I fall into the positive/negative camp.
The only thing to me that makes sense reading all Scripture is Ultimate Reconciliation. I believe hell is a rehab process and everyone will be reconciled at the end.10andBOUNCE said:
How does one navigate the idea of single predestination? If God elects some, don't you have to deal with the other side of the coin? It is either the positive/positive or positive/negative view. I fall into the positive/negative camp.
God is sovereign. Salvation is completely from God.
And everyone will bow their knee and be saved. That appears to be what the early church believed.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
10andBOUNCE said:
How does one navigate the idea of single predestination? If God elects some, don't you have to deal with the other side of the coin? It is either the positive/positive or positive/negative view. I fall into the positive/negative camp.
The elect are those that comport with God's will and choose to follow Him. They have an active role. They are predestined in the fact that God knows what they will choose.
The Calvinist view of predestination is God choosing who He will and will not save with zero input from the subjects chosen.
The first view sees people falling into Hell despite God's desire for their salvation. They are "predestined" to go to Hell but not by God's active will. It's His permissive will. So we can use some of the language with very different interpretations.
Here's an article about the differences in definition of "pre-destination"
https://www.catholic.com/qa/augustine-had-it-right-calvin-did-not
That was never the dominant view for 1500 years. Early church believed in free will.10andBOUNCE said:
How does one navigate the idea of single predestination? If God elects some, don't you have to deal with the other side of the coin? It is either the positive/positive or positive/negative view. I fall into the positive/negative camp.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Your friend does not understand the term. Many reformation denominations recite the apostles and nicene creeds. The history of the church fathers. The point of differentiation is the post- Trent Roman Catholic teaches tradition and the scriptures have similar or equal authority.
The statement is used that we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone according to the scriptures alone.
It never meant theological books or church fathers have nothing to offer us, that is a wrong understanding.
The statement is used that we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone according to the scriptures alone.
It never meant theological books or church fathers have nothing to offer us, that is a wrong understanding.
Ok. Define the scriptures without appealing to tradition, please?
" They are predestined in the fact that God knows what they will choose"
Only because you cited Catholic Answers, I wanted to point out that this statement is mixing in two different concepts the Roman Catholic Church teaches. The first is that God is all knowing, so as you say, God knows who will or will not choose salvation. The other is just as important, that predestination, is in fact God's plan for the salvation of man. This is what Aquinas writes about in the Summa. It is also referenced in that Catholic Answers article.
Only because you cited Catholic Answers, I wanted to point out that this statement is mixing in two different concepts the Roman Catholic Church teaches. The first is that God is all knowing, so as you say, God knows who will or will not choose salvation. The other is just as important, that predestination, is in fact God's plan for the salvation of man. This is what Aquinas writes about in the Summa. It is also referenced in that Catholic Answers article.
From my understanding and reading, Calvin completely changed the traditional Christian view on election/predestination.
If I am mistaken please correct me.
I agree with the linked article.
https://soteriology101.com/2018/06/03/tim-keller-3-objections-to-the-calvinistic-doctrine-of-election/
If I am mistaken please correct me.
I agree with the linked article.
https://soteriology101.com/2018/06/03/tim-keller-3-objections-to-the-calvinistic-doctrine-of-election/
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Nowhere, manZobel said:
Ok. Define the scriptures without appealing to tradition, please?
And for a long time there was only tradition.one MEEN Ag said:Nowhere, manZobel said:
Ok. Define the scriptures without appealing to tradition, please?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:CrackerJackAg said:Mostly Peaceful said:
Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture. The Bible is the sole authority. It makes more sense in the context of the reformation. The 5 solas were a rejection of the man made traditions instituted by the RCC.
The term canon, from a Hebrew-Greek word meaning "cane" or "measuring rod," passed into Christian usage to mean "norm" or "rule of faith." The Church Fathers of the 4th century ce first employed it in reference to the definitive,…
The Orthodox Church put together a Biblical Canon for this exact purpose and had this covered 1700 years ago.
t's a creation inspired by The Church to frame what it is to be Christian. If you contradict these VERY CORE beliefs then it isn't Christian. It was not intended as a stand alone set of documents to exist outside of Church Tradition. Church Tradition in line with the Scriptures is important.
I'm late to the party because of the hurricane, but this is false. The orthodox church did not "put together a Biblical Canon." There's literally no evidence of this.
But it runs into all kinds of issues if you try to take this line of reasoning.
For example, What infallible group put together the Old Testament? Why aren't you listening to their interpretation? Shoot, why did Jesus Himself not listen to the Pharisees? They were sitting in the seat of Moses.
That Rome and the EO try and create this weird elevated manmade church structure has always been odd.
No evidence? There was a whole council were it was parsed out.
You do know the OT times had biblical conflicts as well. Hence Pharisees and sadducees. So they were having the same discussions as the early Church did.
As to why Jesus just didn't listen to them? Just an odd question. Why wouldn't God take orders from men?
Let me ask you this: if the Bible was always the end all, be all, why is there zero evidence that the apostles were writing anything down at Jesus' command? Seems to me if all we needed was our Bible that Jesus' would have had the foresight to have it all written down as soon as possible instead of the apostles doing it under the inspiration of the Spirit a couple decades later.
Jesus was, however, very emphatic that they go out and teach others and spread the word, which they did immediately. I don't see how it's hard to reach the conclusion that He gave them teaching authority, not a book
There was not a "whole council that parsed it out." That's just Rome retconning history. Nobody, including Rome holds any of those supposed councils as Ecumenical, including someone like Jerome who barely mentions it.
No council decided anything about the canon. What councils did do, what to document the books they were using as canon, but there are other councils who used other books and nobody cared.
----------------
Your second question is a strawman. Nobody is saying "solo/nuda Scriptura." However, to attempt the reasoning of Rome (or the EO) on the Scriptures is a jumbled mess.
Lets start with the obvious.
First, there was apparently no need for an "infallible church" to create the Old Testament. We know this because Jesus clearly corrects the Jews on their understanding. So Rome/EO have a problem. EIther the Jews were infallible, and the understanding of Jesus, Rome and the EO is wrong. Or the Scriptures do not need a human infallbile interpreter. It would be nonsensical to argue that the OT did not need an infallible church/group/etc, but the NT does.
Second, Rome and EO's reasoning is circular. If Rome/EO argue their infallible interpretation comes from Scripture, and they also created the Scriptures (as was claimed), then they've created a circle.
Serviam said:AgLiving06 said:CrackerJackAg said:Mostly Peaceful said:
Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture. The Bible is the sole authority. It makes more sense in the context of the reformation. The 5 solas were a rejection of the man made traditions instituted by the RCC.
The term canon, from a Hebrew-Greek word meaning "cane" or "measuring rod," passed into Christian usage to mean "norm" or "rule of faith." The Church Fathers of the 4th century ce first employed it in reference to the definitive,…
The Orthodox Church put together a Biblical Canon for this exact purpose and had this covered 1700 years ago.
t's a creation inspired by The Church to frame what it is to be Christian. If you contradict these VERY CORE beliefs then it isn't Christian. It was not intended as a stand alone set of documents to exist outside of Church Tradition. Church Tradition in line with the Scriptures is important.
I'm late to the party because of the hurricane, but this is false. The orthodox church did not "put together a Biblical Canon." There's literally no evidence of this.
But it runs into all kinds of issues if you try to take this line of reasoning.
For example, What infallible group put together the Old Testament? Why aren't you listening to their interpretation? Shoot, why did Jesus Himself not listen to the Pharisees? They were sitting in the seat of Moses.
That Rome and the EO try and create this weird elevated manmade church structure has always been odd.
There is absolutely evidence of this. I don't know which part you're fuzzy on; that the body who put together the canon of the Bible wasn't the orthodox or Catholic Church; or that the canon of the Bible was never actually put together and just came to be like the 10 commandments.
Jesus Christ didn't have to listen to the Pharisees, he was God incarnate; the fulfillment of the law which the Pharisees practices. But even HE said do what they tell you to, but don't do what they do, because of their legitimate authority.
You have to keep reading all of Matthew 23 and not just the first part.
Notice he differentiates the Pharisees and says when they "sit on the seat of Moses and Preach" we should listen. Just as when someone rightly handles Scripture, we should listen.
However, we should not trust what they say when it does not align with Scripture.
Quote:
16 "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' 17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? 18 And you say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.' 19 You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it. 22 And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it.
You are right..the evidence is absolutely clear. When someone (anyone) rightly handles Scripture, we should listen. When they don't or they try to exceed Scripture, we are free to ignore them.
Not sure anyone would take a teaching body seriously if what they promulgated wasn't definitive and free of doctrinal errors. At some point, theological discussions have to be settled.
The idea that the Holy Spirit can and does guide the Church can only mean something if there were an infallible clause that may be invoked even if rarely.
The idea that the Holy Spirit can and does guide the Church can only mean something if there were an infallible clause that may be invoked even if rarely.
AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:CrackerJackAg said:Mostly Peaceful said:
Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture. The Bible is the sole authority. It makes more sense in the context of the reformation. The 5 solas were a rejection of the man made traditions instituted by the RCC.
The term canon, from a Hebrew-Greek word meaning "cane" or "measuring rod," passed into Christian usage to mean "norm" or "rule of faith." The Church Fathers of the 4th century ce first employed it in reference to the definitive,…
The Orthodox Church put together a Biblical Canon for this exact purpose and had this covered 1700 years ago.
t's a creation inspired by The Church to frame what it is to be Christian. If you contradict these VERY CORE beliefs then it isn't Christian. It was not intended as a stand alone set of documents to exist outside of Church Tradition. Church Tradition in line with the Scriptures is important.
I'm late to the party because of the hurricane, but this is false. The orthodox church did not "put together a Biblical Canon." There's literally no evidence of this.
But it runs into all kinds of issues if you try to take this line of reasoning.
For example, What infallible group put together the Old Testament? Why aren't you listening to their interpretation? Shoot, why did Jesus Himself not listen to the Pharisees? They were sitting in the seat of Moses.
That Rome and the EO try and create this weird elevated manmade church structure has always been odd.
No evidence? There was a whole council were it was parsed out.
You do know the OT times had biblical conflicts as well. Hence Pharisees and sadducees. So they were having the same discussions as the early Church did.
As to why Jesus just didn't listen to them? Just an odd question. Why wouldn't God take orders from men?
Let me ask you this: if the Bible was always the end all, be all, why is there zero evidence that the apostles were writing anything down at Jesus' command? Seems to me if all we needed was our Bible that Jesus' would have had the foresight to have it all written down as soon as possible instead of the apostles doing it under the inspiration of the Spirit a couple decades later.
Jesus was, however, very emphatic that they go out and teach others and spread the word, which they did immediately. I don't see how it's hard to reach the conclusion that He gave them teaching authority, not a book
There was not a "whole council that parsed it out." That's just Rome retconning history. Nobody, including Rome holds any of those supposed councils as Ecumenical, including someone like Jerome who barely mentions it.
No council decided anything about the canon. What councils did do, what to document the books they were using as canon, but there are other councils who used other books and nobody cared.
----------------
Your second question is a strawman. Nobody is saying "solo/nuda Scriptura." However, to attempt the reasoning of Rome (or the EO) on the Scriptures is a jumbled mess.
Lets start with the obvious.
First, there was apparently no need for an "infallible church" to create the Old Testament. We know this because Jesus clearly corrects the Jews on their understanding. So Rome/EO have a problem. EIther the Jews were infallible, and the understanding of Jesus, Rome and the EO is wrong. Or the Scriptures do not need a human infallbile interpreter. It would be nonsensical to argue that the OT did not need an infallible church/group/etc, but the NT does.
Second, Rome and EO's reasoning is circular. If Rome/EO argue their infallible interpretation comes from Scripture, and they also created the Scriptures (as was claimed), then they've created a circle.
Let's grant that all they did was document what was currently being used as canon. How do we know they were correct? What if some of the books they decided upon don't belong? What if some of the "apocrypha" we know of should have been included? Why can't we choose any particular book and decide that it never belonged or was unreasonably excluded?
ETA: Luther played with this for sure. While I'll grant he didn't advocate exclusion, he clearly didn't think the book of James should be taught. Please explain how we can know how this book belongs at all without using tradition.
You seem to eschew the true "sola" that other non-Catholics here are using. I don't see how you can answer the above using the Bible itself, but I'm open to it. I assume you are going down the track of "scripture was merely recognized not determined" while ignoring the multiple decades that these scriptures did not exist in writing. I will not hard press you on this, but if you agree that there was a 20-70 year period where none of this was written (and even if it had been 95+% of people were illiterate) I'd love to hear why what writings were preserved have authority. Maybe the council recognizing these books was already corrupted!!!
And after writing multiple paragraphs to refute your paragraphs 3-6, I'm choosing to try and break this into 2 subjects. If we can get through the above, I'll happily post what I have written about the rest.
The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:CrackerJackAg said:Mostly Peaceful said:
Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture. The Bible is the sole authority. It makes more sense in the context of the reformation. The 5 solas were a rejection of the man made traditions instituted by the RCC.
The term canon, from a Hebrew-Greek word meaning "cane" or "measuring rod," passed into Christian usage to mean "norm" or "rule of faith." The Church Fathers of the 4th century ce first employed it in reference to the definitive,…
The Orthodox Church put together a Biblical Canon for this exact purpose and had this covered 1700 years ago.
t's a creation inspired by The Church to frame what it is to be Christian. If you contradict these VERY CORE beliefs then it isn't Christian. It was not intended as a stand alone set of documents to exist outside of Church Tradition. Church Tradition in line with the Scriptures is important.
I'm late to the party because of the hurricane, but this is false. The orthodox church did not "put together a Biblical Canon." There's literally no evidence of this.
But it runs into all kinds of issues if you try to take this line of reasoning.
For example, What infallible group put together the Old Testament? Why aren't you listening to their interpretation? Shoot, why did Jesus Himself not listen to the Pharisees? They were sitting in the seat of Moses.
That Rome and the EO try and create this weird elevated manmade church structure has always been odd.
No evidence? There was a whole council were it was parsed out.
You do know the OT times had biblical conflicts as well. Hence Pharisees and sadducees. So they were having the same discussions as the early Church did.
As to why Jesus just didn't listen to them? Just an odd question. Why wouldn't God take orders from men?
Let me ask you this: if the Bible was always the end all, be all, why is there zero evidence that the apostles were writing anything down at Jesus' command? Seems to me if all we needed was our Bible that Jesus' would have had the foresight to have it all written down as soon as possible instead of the apostles doing it under the inspiration of the Spirit a couple decades later.
Jesus was, however, very emphatic that they go out and teach others and spread the word, which they did immediately. I don't see how it's hard to reach the conclusion that He gave them teaching authority, not a book
There was not a "whole council that parsed it out." That's just Rome retconning history. Nobody, including Rome holds any of those supposed councils as Ecumenical, including someone like Jerome who barely mentions it.
No council decided anything about the canon. What councils did do, what to document the books they were using as canon, but there are other councils who used other books and nobody cared.
----------------
Your second question is a strawman. Nobody is saying "solo/nuda Scriptura." However, to attempt the reasoning of Rome (or the EO) on the Scriptures is a jumbled mess.
Lets start with the obvious.
First, there was apparently no need for an "infallible church" to create the Old Testament. We know this because Jesus clearly corrects the Jews on their understanding. So Rome/EO have a problem. EIther the Jews were infallible, and the understanding of Jesus, Rome and the EO is wrong. Or the Scriptures do not need a human infallbile interpreter. It would be nonsensical to argue that the OT did not need an infallible church/group/etc, but the NT does.
Second, Rome and EO's reasoning is circular. If Rome/EO argue their infallible interpretation comes from Scripture, and they also created the Scriptures (as was claimed), then they've created a circle.
Let's grant that all they did was document what was currently being used as canon. How do we know they were correct? What if some of the books they decided upon don't belong? What if some of the "apocrypha" we know of should have been included? Why can't we choose any particular book and decide that it never belonged or was unreasonably excluded?
ETA: Luther played with this for sure. While I'll grant he didn't advocate exclusion, he clearly didn't think the book of James should be taught. Please explain how we can know how this book belongs at all without using tradition.
You seem to eschew the true "sola" that other non-Catholics here are using. I don't see how you can answer the above using the Bible itself, but I'm open to it. I assume you are going down the track of "scripture was merely recognized not determined" while ignoring the multiple decades that these scriptures did not exist in writing. I will not hard press you on this, but if you agree that there was a 20-70 year period where none of this was written (and even if it had been 95+% of people were illiterate) I'd love to hear why what writings were preserved have authority. Maybe the council recognizing these books was already corrupted!!!
And after writing multiple paragraphs to refute your paragraphs 3-6, I'm choosing to try and break this into 2 subjects. If we can get through the above, I'll happily post what I have written about the rest.
We don't need to start with the NT...we start with the OT.
How do we know what's properly in the OT? How did Jesus know? How did anybody know?
When Hilkiah finds the Book of the Law in the Temple and brings it to King Josiah in 2 Kings 22, how did they know it was from God?
Rome and EO's claim is we MUST have an infallible church in order for us to know what the Scriptures are. Why was that never necessary for the Jews? An authority is claimed now that had never been necessary.
But when we look to the Church Fathers, there is a clear divide between those who turned to the Jews to understand what the OT canon was, and those who didn't. There's a reason, that while Jerome included the Apocrypha in the Vulgate, he made it clear it was not in the Jewish canon.
Finally, we use terms like homologoumena and antilegomena to differentiate books that were always excepted and those spoken against. This goes back to Eusebius. It's only in modern times that Roman Catholic Apologists have attempted to point to councils as justification. The reality is though that a huge portion of the NT was accepted by the wider church without any need for an organized council or group....just as the OT had.
So the onus is really on Rome and the EO to justify why an infallible interpreter/decider is necessary ONLY for the NT, but not for the OT.
this is an argument no one is making, a strawman claim.Quote:
Rome and EO's claim is we MUST have an infallible church in order for us to know what the Scriptures are.
The claim is that we must have an authority which passes down the scriptures to us as part of the totality of apostolic teaching. That passing down is tradition.
Early communities identified each other as part of the same faith partially by which scriptures they used and partially by which teachings, praxis, they followed. They are of a piece. When new writings were introduced they were tested against praxis and teaching. Books which conformed were accepted, books which did not (ie heretical books) were not. Some books were accepted as canonical, that is, fit to be read aloud in church as scripture. Some were accepted as edifying to be read in the home but not to be read as part of the public teaching of the church. Some were rejected - and that included rejecting the communities that used them as heterodox.
Since there was one deposit of faith, over time the books coalesced into a common canon representing the common faith. Some books were on the margin, the disputed books. But when we look historically there is room for difference in canon as long as there is no fundamental difference in praxis or teaching. By inspection then the deposit of faith in historical fact ranks higher than the particulars of the canon. One informed the other, by necessity, because one came first.
Zobel said:this is an argument no one is making, a strawman claim.Quote:
Rome and EO's claim is we MUST have an infallible church in order for us to know what the Scriptures are.
The claim is that we must have an authority which passes down the scriptures to us as part of the totality of apostolic teaching. That passing down is tradition.
Early communities identified each other as part of the same faith partially by which scriptures they used and partially by which teachings, praxis, they followed. They are of a piece. When new writings were introduced they were tested against praxis and teaching. Books which conformed were accepted, books which did not (ie heretical books) were not. Some books were accepted as canonical, that is, fit to be read aloud in church as scripture. Some were accepted as edifying to be read in the home but not to be read as part of the public teaching of the church. Some were rejected - and that included rejecting the communities that used them as heterodox.
Since there was one deposit of faith, over time the books coalesced into a common canon representing the common faith. Some books were on the margin, the disputed books. But when we look historically there is room for difference in canon as long as there is no fundamental difference in praxis or teaching. By inspection then the deposit of faith in historical fact ranks higher than the particulars of the canon. One informed the other, by necessity, because one came first.
Not a strawman. This is Rome's argument.
You're combining comments.
On the canon, you're making a very similar argument as protestants. There's no need to invent a council as Rome attempts to do. There was no declaration by a "pope." The New Testament came to be in a similar manner as the Old Testament.
Once you begin to acknowledge that a church is not infallibly necessary to define the Scriptures, the next question is, how do we know whether their "unwritten tradition" is accurate? Rome claims the tradition handed down confirms the Pope. EO denies that. If you don't want to claim an infallible church, then you're at a stalemate.
Sorry, no. You don't have to have an infallible authority to have an accepted authority. Pharisees and Sadducees had different canons and as far as I know neither claimed infallibility. But the canon is part of the authority structure of the group that has those particular writings as canon. It's descriptive. If a book functions as scripture for your group it's canon, and that group has an authority structure.
And by necessity you need <<some>> authority structure to even determine what is and isn't going to function as scripture in your community. Some entity, even if diffuse, is going to decide what is read aloud in your meetings.
What doesn't work is having a scripture function as the authority, because you can have multiple authority structures functioning with the same writings. This is a simple observation of fact.
Books don't DO anything. They are inanimate objects. The people who use them make them canonical or not by how they use them.
Protestants making the claim that the scriptures are their authority are making a de facto appeal to authority of the early Church writ large, that whatever scriptures functioned in those churches is canon for them. But at the same time they reject the same authority structure which chose those writings to function as canon. It's nonsensical, and tail-chasing.
And by necessity you need <<some>> authority structure to even determine what is and isn't going to function as scripture in your community. Some entity, even if diffuse, is going to decide what is read aloud in your meetings.
What doesn't work is having a scripture function as the authority, because you can have multiple authority structures functioning with the same writings. This is a simple observation of fact.
Books don't DO anything. They are inanimate objects. The people who use them make them canonical or not by how they use them.
Protestants making the claim that the scriptures are their authority are making a de facto appeal to authority of the early Church writ large, that whatever scriptures functioned in those churches is canon for them. But at the same time they reject the same authority structure which chose those writings to function as canon. It's nonsensical, and tail-chasing.
This is probably one of the weaker arguments I've seen. Are you really asking how did Jesus (literally God) know what was true in the OT?
The next issue that we run into is that the majority of the OT is historical records. Yes, God moves in several moments in time, but in terms of subject matter, there is far less teaching and much more documentation of events.
Lastly, there was disagreement on what did or didn't belong in Jewish times. If you'd like us to return to a time when we could all disagree about what belongs in the Bible and what doesn't, then authority isn't needed. Do you believe we can challenge if a particular book truly belongs? Even if a "huge portion" was simply widely accepted, that means some wasn't. How do we know those even belong?
Lastly, a "huge portion" of the early church accepted Arianism. A "huge portion" of Christians currently accept contraception. More and more are beginning to accept abortion. I don't really care what a "huge portion" of people accept. Something being widely accepted doesn't make it true. There has to be some authority to determine what is true.
Let me phrase my observation about authority in a different way. If the scripture was the actual authority, all the diverse Protestant groups would be in communion with each other. They're not, so it is not. QED.
Just because there are many that insist scripture is the final authority doesn't mean they actually behave in this way. This is why we have dozens and dozens of borderline false teachers out there in churches with tens of thousands of congregants.
I think for me, I tend to use the bowling lane illustration.
Scripture acts as those bumpers you can bring up so you don't have any gutter balls. Church tradition is fine to exist in that lane that is bound by scripture. Scripture should always be there to check where we as individuals and together as churches are existing.
I honestly need to get a little smarter as far as scripture as we know it, how it came to pass, and the role of the church in that process.
Scripture acts as those bumpers you can bring up so you don't have any gutter balls. Church tradition is fine to exist in that lane that is bound by scripture. Scripture should always be there to check where we as individuals and together as churches are existing.
I honestly need to get a little smarter as far as scripture as we know it, how it came to pass, and the role of the church in that process.
Are not those "false teachers" using the same Scriptures your teachers are?10andBOUNCE said:
Just because there are many that insist scripture is the final authority doesn't mean they actually behave in this way. This is why we have dozens and dozens of borderline false teachers out there in churches with tens of thousands of congregants.
The point is, Scripture can be interpreted by people in a million different ways. To me, that is why the Creeds are so important as a fundamental basic definition of the Christian faith. And the Creeds are tradition and Scripturally based.
I think as Christians we often spend too much time on theology instead of focusing on Jesus. And strange that Jesus accused the Pharisees of the same thing.
John 5 39
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life, and it is they that bear witness about Me.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Agree completely. On the last part.10andBOUNCE said:
I think for me, I tend to use the bowling lane illustration.
Scripture acts as those bumpers you can bring up so you don't have any gutter balls. Church tradition is fine to exist in that lane that is bound by scripture. Scripture should always be there to check where we as individuals and together as churches are existing.
I honestly need to get a little smarter as far as scripture as we know it, how it came to pass, and the role of the church in that process.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc said:Are not those "false teachers" using the same Scriptures your teachers are?10andBOUNCE said:
Just because there are many that insist scripture is the final authority doesn't mean they actually behave in this way. This is why we have dozens and dozens of borderline false teachers out there in churches with tens of thousands of congregants.
The point is, Scripture can be interpreted by people in a million different ways. To me, that is why the Creeds are so important as a fundamental basic definition of the Christian faith. And the Creeds are tradition and Scripturally based.
I think as Christians we often spend too much time on theology instead of focusing on Jesus. And strange that Jesus accused the Pharisees of the same thing.
John 5 39
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life, and it is they that bear witness about Me.
To be fair, the theology typically comes from challenges to the current authority. If the response was "our teachers said this is the way we should understand the scriptures/morals/liturgy? Ok", then I think there would be a lot less time spent of theology. And prior to the printing press, that's pretty much how it went. The higher ups debated over what the scriptures meant and the rest of us just went along with it.
Featured Stories
See All
'Thank yOU?' A&M's outlook unaffected by disappointment at Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
27:51
5h ago
3.9k
12:07
4h ago
4.2k
Post Game Review: Auburn 43, No. 15 Texas A&M 41 (4OT)
by Kay Naegeli
1:54
19h ago
976
Chace Sims locked in on playoff run while getting ready for Aggieland
by Ryan Brauninger
Colonel Ingus
"We are not a team built to play from behind" - Elko
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
30