That is just a blatant refusal AND a very blind ignorance of history. Any historian would acknowledge the fact that a council (could someone remind me the name of this council?) of the Church (POST-Constantine Church, if you must know) met and defined infallibly the list of Canons that defined what was Scripture and what was not.
Laugh. No. Cry maybe. Now I remember why I stopped participating in Catholic forums a few years back.
I hope you realize that rjmporter was using sarcasm to prove a point. His (or her) profile states that he’s Catholic.
The councils of Carthage and Hippo were two from around the 4th century (I believe). While they were not themselves ecumenical councils, they were affirmed by ecumenical councils which also listed the New Testament canon. All Bibles copied and, eventually printed, prior to the Protestant revolt included all 73 books of the Catholic canon (plus a few other non-canonical writings which were included in the Septuagint). In response to the claims of the Reformers, the Council of Trent listed the entire canon of Scripture and was the first ecumenical council to explicitly do so.
I didn’t realize Jesus instituted bishops, I must have missed that in my protestant Bible.
I simply stated my beliefs. You can take them or leave them.
Why do you think Augustine, Ignatius or John Paul 2 is better than anyone else for God to speak to? Aren’t we all God’s creation and able to access His throne of grace?
Yes, it is a refusal (I thought I made that clear). Ignorance of history? No. So what if a council defined infallibly the list of canons? Was it not believed to be so already? Did it have to have a council to decide so? Wasn’t it believed already?That is just a blatant refusal AND a very blind ignorance of history. Any historian would acknowledge the fact that a council (could someone remind me the name of this council?) of the Church (POST-Constantine Church, if you must know) met and defined infallibly the list of Canons that defined what was Scripture and what was not.
And that INCLUDES the OT, which of course Luther took 7 out of.
You ignore the fact that Jesus quoted Old Testament Scriptures (such as Isaiah). The OT was quoted many times by Christ. Since I believe He was authoritative, I don’t think the Jews needed a council to decide if Isaiah was Scripture.
Whoa! ahimsaman72! It was in *my *Protestant Bible – not that I ever recognized it, of course.
That is just a blatant refusal AND a very blind ignorance of history. Any historian would acknowledge the fact that a council (could someone remind me the name of this council?) of the Church (POST-Constantine Church, if you must know) met and defined infallibly the list of Canons that defined what was Scripture and what was not.
And that INCLUDES the OT, which of course Luther took 7 out of.
It is quite obvious that the early Christians in the apostles times had no problem with what was accepted as Scripture.
But, my brother, you *do *accept the authority of the Church when you profess that Jesus Christ is the God and the Son of God, incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, that he was crucified, died, rose again from the dead and ascended into heaven . . . that the Holy Spirit is God . . . that Christ is the head of the Church . . .
Jesus Christ is the head of the church, which is His body. I am part of that body - you are part of that body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “you do not belong to the body” any more than the leg can say to the ear that it doesn’t belong to the body.
Indeed. Christ has made it so. That is the teaching of the Church.
No it wasn’t believed already. At the time of the councils, most of the early Church accepted the Didache and very few accepted Revelation. This whole argument of yours does show your ignorance of history. There were around 40 writings being passed around within the early Church and they were accepted to differing degrees in different areas. Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, James, and Revelation were not universally accepted and are in (as you put it) your Protestant Bible. The Didache and at least 10 other writings were also not universally accepted but are not in it. Clearly, your Protestant Bible is not the result of what was simply believed regardless of a council’s decision, it is the result of the counciliar decision of what writings constitute the New Testament of Christ.
No, he didn’t need my (name removed by moderator)ut, but in the very examples you cite, you prove that I am right. God spoke through people. The Jews in the days of the prophets (and on through Jesus’s time) did not possess their own copies of the Scriptures. The Word of God in Scripture was proclaimed by the authoritative Church He established. That authoritative Old Testament Church did define what writings constituted Scripture and it was that authoritative Church that passed on the writings from generation to generation. Jesus established a New Testament Church and gave it the same authority.
I don’t ignore that fact at all but there are three very big problems with your argument. 1: Did Jesus quote from each and every one of the Old Testament Scriptures thereby confirming their authority? 2: He also quoted from Jewish writings that are not considered Scripture (like Enoch) so why aren’t they in the Christian canon. 3: Since you were not around in those days, exactly how do you know which writings He quoted?
That is not apparent at all and there are passages from the New Testament that can be traced back to the writings that Protestants consider apocryphal but Catholics accept. Yes the early believers had certain accepted Scripture, but the statement does not answer the question about how they came to that acceptance.
I meant a refusal of the facts of history.
No it wasn’t. Before the Councils of Vatican, most councils were held to refute heresies, to settle disputes and controversies (by defining dogmas and canons. The council called to define the list of canons were no different. Over the centuries before that, the belief that the epistles were God-breathed was gradual. Some epistles weren’t even acknowledged by many to be God-breathed until the Council defined it eventually. St Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, even said, “I would not believe in the Gospels myself if the authority of the Church does not compel me to do so.”
Funny, you claim to use logic but refuse to address claims which refute your points. How illogical.
One doesn’t necessarily follow the other. Just because I use logic doesn’t mean I have to address your claims.
God has revealed Himself plainly through the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. No more revelation is needed.
It is authoritative in itself as I have said many times. It doesn’t need my approval. 2 Timothy 3:16.
Well, we are here to reveal ourselves, our thoughts and beliefs. I have stated in other posts elsewhere on the forum that are people more learned than me who can speak more clearly and with more conviction than me. I am simply a person struggling with many issues. Since I don’t accept your authority or your church’s authority, then who else’s authority can I claim, but my own? That’s logical.
The Old Testament system was completed and abolished with the death of Christ, establishing a new covenant, one in which the priesthood is given to believers instead of only the Levites.
The prophetical writings were accepted together as the major and minor prophets. Any practicing Jew can tell you.
ahimsaman72 – you need your coffee again this morning: Acts 28:14-17:
And Paul was martyred there.