"…Another Protestant, G. B. Smith, concludes that only when one admits a divine authority in the Church can there be an infallible canon. Liberal Protestants, because of a loose concept of inspiration, show little concern with the problem of the criterion of the canon. "
The Letter of Jude quotes the Book of Enoch, yet the Book is never included in the Bible. If it is not included then it is not inspired, yet how would Jude quote a non-inspired work?
You mistake “self-authenticating” with “self-interpreting”. BIg difference. Every member of the 30,000+ disagreeing denominations maintains that the bible interprets itself - but they each disagree with their brothers and sisters. How is this possible?
Then why did it take the true Chruch 300 years to determine which books belonged in the New Testament and which ones did not? If it wasn’t for the Catholic Church you wouldn’t even have a New Tetsament.
Inanimate objects can’t self-authenticate because they aren’t self aware. It is essential to remember that the Bible is a collection of separate writings brought to together in one volume according to an authority, the Church, which, inspired by the Holy Spirit established an official list called a canon. The word Bible means “The Books” and didn’t exist in one volume until nearly 400 years after Christ.
Timothy is talking about what we would call Old Testament scripture. Do you know why? Because New testament Scripture didn’t exist yet; it wasn’t finished being written. It had 30+ years to go when Timothy put his works in writing.
First the church did not give birth to the Bible, the Bible gave birth to the church. each book of the Bible was considered canonical the moment it was written if it was written (OT) by a Prophet or one whom the prophets authenticated, or in the NT by an Apostle or one they recognized. Again the church did not give irth to the Bible. the Bible came before the catholic church was even around.
Wrong again. The early Church did not have an authorized, complete New Testament until well into the mid-300’s A.D. It is an historical fact.
Are you serious?
Tell us the chapter and verse that says this! It is not there. Study the early history of the church - PLEASE!
Obviously DLC is. I wonder what kind of historical proof will be given to support this outrageous claim. Whatever it is, it should be an interesting read. But I strongly suspect that DLC will not even attempt to address it.Are you serious?
My guess is that he will present the same “self-autenticating”, “self-interpreting” bible. And I will bet that he does not even have a complete bible! Frankly, it sounds like bible idolatry. I know it’s not, but when the bible is all you have…
You could never be more wrong. All the church did was recognize what was already known to be canonical.
Oh, puhleeeese! Who told you or taught you this error? The entire purpose of the council was to settle the centuries old arguments and disputes over the canonicity of the numerous scriptures that had been written. It is true that the inspired works were exactly that the moment they were written. But how could anyone know just by looking? Why were the gnostic gospels argued? Why was the protoevangelium of James argued? These and many more “scriptures” were all put forth for consideration. Why didn’t they make the cut? Why didn’t the early Church already know they were not inspired? Remember, there was no bible at that point - only collections of scrolls.
Delusional. Your own brand of truth. Sorry. Wrong call.
Just one question from me, Clark. I presume you’ll be a gentleman to answer this:
Christ disagrees with you, I think. In 33AD did He say?;
The Bible indicates that miracles will accompany those who believe as confirmation of the Gospel message that they preach. (Mark 16:20) Since the Gospel message is still being preached by believers, it follows that confirming miracles will still accompany them. (Revelation 11:6 seems to indicate that confirming miracles will accompany believers even after the last book of the Bible was written.) By the examples of the bones of Elisha and the aprons and handkerchiefs of St. Paul, the Bible suggests that these confirming miracles might not be limited to just the person of the believer while alive but may extend even to his relics, his mortal remains and possessions.
Now, I’m just a dumb Catholic, but I don;t believe that “Jews” actually used the NT. And, they didn’t settle their OT canon until well after the formation of Christ’s Church. Again, who taught you this? Come on, if it’s the truth, you should have no shame in revealing your source(s).