A
Atemi
Guest
LOL.
There is no such thing as “for the most part closed.” That is a contradiction in terms.
There never has been such a thing.
…
- Status
There is no such thing as “for the most part closed.” That is a contradiction in terms.
There never has been such a thing.
…
A
Atemi
Guest
Not quite.
I asked:
"Care to share what is missing from God’s Scriptures that you need to know to live a life of holiness?"
The question is rhetorical. The answer is plainly: nothing.
Any Christian worth their salt knows this, no matter how much they feel compelled to argue otherwise.
Jewish and Christian lives, century after century…long before the RCC got around to closing the canon at Trent.
You think God left all His people without an essential part of faith until Trent??
LOL, no.
How is it that Christ and the Apostles all knew what Scripture was before Trent?
How did the faithful Jews since the Exodus?
How did they ever do it without the “essential” RC canon supplied late at Trent?
Your objection has no merit here.
…
D
Donald45
Guest
Again, a mere assumption on your part. Where, in “the Bible alone,” is it stated that the Apostles recorded the entirety of apostolic Tradition in writing, without residue? I await your reply.
The “word of God” is also contained in the decrees of the ecclesiastical councils, and in the ex cathedra pronouncements of the Bishops of Rome. “Word” means “message,” not “written word.” The New Testament itself applies the term “word of God” (“message of God”) to oral Tradition, as well as to written Tradition.
There is a principle, of which you’re apparently unaware, known as the Unanimous Consent of the Fathers:
envoymagazine.com/backissues/3.2/faithoffathers.htm
catholicconvert.com/Default.aspx?tabid=83 [scroll down]
Though individual Fathers may occasionally make an erroneous statement, when the Fathers taken as a whole affirm a particular thing collectively and consistently, then----according to the Unanimous Consent of the Fathers----their teaching is considered infallibly true and binding. Such doctrines based upon the testimony of the Fathers would be, for example, the Trinity, the Canon of Scripture, baptismal regeneration, papal authority, apostolic succession, the seven sacraments, etc.
Since this is the central assumption of Protestantism, it should be a simple task for you to offer half-a-dozen biblical texts that clearly teach sola scriptura, yes? How about just two? I’ll wait…
You’re assuming (another assumption) that the Bible was ever intended by God to function alone, apart from the ongoing Tradition and teaching of the Church that Christ himself established. Yet, where is this taught in Scripture? Nowhere. Your arguments all rest on the bare assumption of sola scriptura, an assumption that cannot itself be defended from “the Bible alone.”
Of course, nothing is “missing” from Scripture that God intended to be there. However, God did not intend that everything relevant to Christian life and practice should be contained in Scripture alone. This is a mere assumption on your part. The Church has always affirmed the authority of apostolic Tradition as well.
Blessings,
Don
+T+
Z
zagjames
Guest
Yeah, but you missed the first part of my post. The NT cannon was closed over 1000 years before Trent. The church said the books that were in it were in it, and if another book should be in it well then we would take a look at it, but nothing can be subtracted. It was not until the OT cannon was disputed did the church make an official statement. The church had the OT cannon agreed upon for over 1000 years in the west, but when someone (who will remain nameless, but i all think we know who made the mess) decided to challenge the cannon of the old testament the Church made a dogmatic decision because one was needed.
It was not closed before Trent because the Church wanted legitimate discussion about some of the OT books that some of the Eastern Churches use but the west doesnt. The cannon wasnt closed because we did not want to close it if we were missing a part. But after 1500 years we were still not convinced so when Luther challenged it we slammed it shut.
A
Atemi
Guest
Please quote all the extra-biblical Word of God you can and please offer the citations from your church that authoritatively recognize such quotes as the Word of God.
Of course, your opinion as to what you think is the Word of God is useless in this context.
A principle long abandoned by the RCC for its total lack of functionality in the modern era.
The reality is that there is very little unanimous consent of the fathers on any uniquely Roman Catholic doctrine. Of course, if you redefine “unanimous” and “consent,” you can make up anything you like.
It is self evident to the follower of Christ.
You replied but offered no exception at all that I may have missed. If there are so many, surely you can come up with a couple.
Surely…
Again, you provide a wordy response that nowhere answers the question.
Again:
Care to share what is missing from God’s Scriptures that you need to know to live a life of holiness?
You keep implying that there is such a thing, first by mentioning the teachings of the ECFs and now by mentioning “Apostolic Tradition,” yet you failed to list a single one.
What else is there that we need to know to live a life of holiness that the Holy Spirit failed to include in His inspired Scriptures He purposely had penned?
Anything?
I hope you have something more of substance in your next reply as you offered nothing in this one.
…
A
Atemi
Guest
A canon that could be added to cannot, by definition, be closed.
This is basic. You only contradict yourself here and the actual history of the canon.
Also, a biblical canon that remains open is still not closed. Mentioning a moot “NT canon” does not speak to the canon of Scriptures we are speaking about here.
BTW, can you please cite your source where we find the NT canon “closed” but the OT canon excepted. Thank you.
I thought you just said that the NT canon was closed but they could still add books to it if they needed to:
“The church said the books that were in it were in it, and if another book should be in it well then we would take a look at it, but nothing can be subtracted”
Now you say the church did not want to close the OT canon because they may have wanted to possibly add books to it.
You are not remaining consistent here at all.
Where did you learn this apologetic?
…
T
Tim_Kirchoff
Guest
What is not included in the Bible is the correct interpretation.
Besides the fact I know of no scriptural basis for sola scriptura, I know that not every person can dedicate their lives to reading all of Scripture and deciding on the correct meanings for themselves. To my knowledge, Scripture wasn’t written with attached commentaries explaining X prophecy or Y metaphor, even Z historical event. If a person were to try to understand every single word of Scripture as it applies to their life, they would have no time for anything else.
The Bible is not the handbook for Christian life- it is the written record of salvation history. We can certainly draw lessons from Scripture, but Scripture is an incomplete resource.
A
Atemi
Guest
- Love God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind.
- Love your neighbor as yourself.
- Pray always.
- Be a cheerful giver.
- Don’t steal.
- Do not commit adultery.
- etc…
Wow.
…
T
Tim_Kirchoff
Guest
If this is all that’s necessary, why do we even have the rest of the Bible?
A
Atemi
Guest
T
Tim_Kirchoff
Guest
How cheerful must I be in giving? Can you name even one person who has lived all these out?
My point is, there’s more to the Bible than this little list. Why do we have the rest of the Bible, if this is all we need? Why aren’t we all just born with your little list here on a sheet of paper, so we can keep it in our pocket as a reminder?
Z
zagjames
Guest
Jesus seemed to think a little interpretation was in order. In his time people knew not to commit adultery. But Jesus offered them the interpretation of this command to include adultery in your mind. If you look at that woman lustfully you have committed adultery.
Jesus interpreted those commands to flush out a fuller meaning. The command by itself is good, but more good can be flushed out of it through interpretation.
So do we need them interpreted? No,
Would we gain more from those commands if we interpreted them and flushed more meaning out of them? Yes.
Interpretation allows you to have a more deep and meaningful understanding of God’s Word in the Bible. Without it our understanding will remain shallow.
God knows we are not completly incompetent. We may be sinful, but we can figure things out if we are given a starting place, and some info. He knows that if we are given A and B we can add them together to get C. I mean He is the one who gave us a brain after all. So he didn’t spell out every last detail in the Bible, because He knows that from scripture and oral tradition we can go A+B=C and figure out how to run his church to the best of our human ability. So WWJD? IMHO He’d offer up a little interpretation, and invite us to get in on it.
A
Atemi
Guest
You should know this already.
Didn’t you say that we need your church’s interpretation to know these things?
Please cite where the Catholic Church has official interpreted how cheerful one must be when they give.
Like you said, the interpretation is necessary. Please link us to the official interpretation by your church that tells us exactly how cheerful we must be.
…
T
Tim_Kirchoff
Guest
No. I will not. Look at some of the other posts. Your question is answered.Answer my other questions too! If this is all we need, why do we have the rest of the Bible?
S
sodak
Guest
There are many things in the Bible that need interpretation, you are picking a strawman. The Catholic Church has the only true interpretation, and it’s found in the Catechism.
The current pathetic state of Protestantism in general, with thousands of divisions, many conflicting doctrines, etc., is proof enough for me to believe that it is the work of Satan to try and divide us. Protestants can’t even point to the Bible without relying on the Catholic Church to ensure that it is factual.
This kind of a discussion makes me think of a layman picking up one of Einstein’s papers on relativity, and rather than trying to learn from him, tries to argue with him, assuming he knows more about relativity than the man who discovered and wrote about it.
- Status