10andBOUNCE said:
Faithful Ag said:
10andBOUNCE said:
I could see that reasoning being used in the early days when there was confusion around what is Scripture, but we are past that now. We have it and it is not open to new revelation. Why can't it be used definitively now?
When would you say this issue became settled? When did we get past the point of new revelation and how?
…because I think the EO/RCC would see this very differently than Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformers… and eventually the Bible Societies of the 19th century who removed 7 OT books…
What is your answer?
I'm not very familiar with the actual process and thought behind the removal of books. I know even the Geneva Bible did contain them but had a preface that they were not equal, so it makes sense that they were eventually removed if that was the early stance.
I would still guess we're really playing in the margins here, unless the point is that these books truly do contain evidence for the practices of Rome not really supported elsewhere.
Yes. The admission that you are not very familiar with the process and are guessing at it should at least get your attention. Knowing Protestants claim their authority is Sola Scriptura requires that your Scriptura is complete, accurate, and has nothing extra and nothing missing. This is a MUST be absolutely correct on everything issue. Non-negotiable. Dismissing it, glossing over it, guessing at it, or blind acceptance are not acceptable answers because what you hold as scripture has been changed. It is different from what the Ancient Apostolic Churches have held and still hold as Scripture.
The practices of Rome and the EO (Tradition and Scripture) should not be your focus or concern, but instead focus a little more on the foundation of Sola Scriptura - because it is not as solid as most Protestants assume and/or dismiss. You are taking a lot for granted which leaves you vulnerable for error.
You stated the we are past the time of confusion about what is Scripture and no longer open to new revelation. These issues were settled long ago.
WHEN were they settled? and HOW? and by WHOM?Looking at it from the historical perspective of the ancient churches - ALL of them (RCC/EO/OOC) include or accept the OT books that Protestants reject today.
WHO designated these books as not equal to Scripture and then add a preface to the Geneva Bible and by WHAT authority? After that, WHO decided to remove them altogether, WHEN, and by WHAT AUTHORITY?
Why is there peace and relative agreement found in every church that dates back to the Apostles on what is Scripture? RCC includes them. The EO churches include them. The Oriental Orthodox that broke away in the 400's include them. The Ethiopian Orthodox include them. ALL of them include them…until a few hundred years ago.
That is the history. Ignore it or fight it if you want. But the proof is with and in the ancient churches.
