B
BrianH
Guest
You cannot prove any of those come from Christ, and thus did not answer my question.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
djrakowski
Guest
It is only upon the authority of the Church that it makes any sense at all to accept the scriptures as authoritative. The Bible didn’t predate the Church - it is the other way around, and it is on the authority of the Church that the Bible has any authority at all.I could as well ask how you accept the authority of the Church without using scripture, since scripture cannot be used until it has already been infallibly determined.
S
SyCarl
Guest
But how do we know the Church has that authority except that it says Tradition says it does?It is only upon the authority of the Church that it makes any sense at all to accept the scriptures as authoritative. The Bible didn’t predate the Church - it is the other way around, and it is on the authority of the Church that the Bible has any authority at all.
E
estesbob
Guest
No he didnt. As I said context is everything. Augusitne was the Bishop. He was part of the magestrium of the Catholic Church. The Cathilkc Church taight at that tme(as it always had) that Jesus was physically present in the Eucharist,ic The idea that Augusitne didnt believe this is ludicrous.I did not quote Augustine out of context. He was telling his readers how to tell when scripture was literal and when it was figurative. He chose John 6 as an example of when what was being said was figurative. That is regardless of what else he may have said on the Eucharist.
But lets get bakc toi the point you ducked. I beleive John 6 is literal, you say it is symbolic. To which one of is the Sprit lying?
A
Athanasiy
Guest
Brian , I think the Christ left the Church not the book.You cannot prove any of those come from Christ, and thus did not answer my question.
The book came later , as the Church tradition.
And it was not meant to be read apart from the Church.
Q
quantumDeus
Guest
Because the Church defined what the New Testament was, it selected the Christian texts that were to be included.But how do we know the Church has that authority except that it says Tradition says it does?
As the previous post said: the Church predates the Scripture. As Paul said, “either by letter or word of mouth.” This tells us clearly that there is Apostolic Tradition as well as Scripture (which, in the context of the time meant the Laws, Prophets and Writings of Judaism then in use (i.g., the Septuagint), NOT the NT text which did not exist.
The canonization of Scripture was a lengthy process, not completed until the 4th century and agreed to by ecumenical council at Nicea (and later reaffirmed at Trent). Prior to that, there were many texts in use that did not make it into the final canonized version. The writings of Clement is one that stands out. Others, like Revelation, made it by the skin of their teeth.
Odd, is it not, that Protestants accept verbatim the findings of the RCC regarding NT Scripture. They did however, to make their schism have “scriptural” basis, reject the Apocrypha of the OT by ignoring what was in use at the time of Christ and basing the OT on the later Masoretic (canonized Judaic OT).
By doing so, they neatly side-stepped issues like purgatory, the nature of the Virgin Mary, and much more. Which, from a religio-political standpoint, was a partial reason they were omitted in Judaism in the late 1st century.
[So what gave the Church the authority? Christ did. He handed the keys to Peter, and gave Magisterium (teaching authority) to the Apostles.]
A
Athanasiy
Guest
The book could be called a book only in the fourth century.
And mind that -’'extra Biblical ‘’ authority identified the canon of the book.
There were not many people who could see it, till the 15-th century.
Since the book started to be separated from the Church , it at once gave the reason for the divisions and disunity, those bad fruits who are totally in opposition to the Spirit of this book.
Even those who believed that the book is ‘‘self-authenticated’’-could not prove it by examination.
Because the book itself does not allow for a final , definitive, interpretation of any given passage of Scripture.
None of the original manuscripts is extant. ( Some sincere devout, and learned Christians doubted the canonicity of some books which are now in the Bible,and others considered books of Scripture which were not at length included in the canon)
The manuscripts themselves contain thousands of variations.
There are also hundreds of Bible versions today.
And mind that -’'extra Biblical ‘’ authority identified the canon of the book.
There were not many people who could see it, till the 15-th century.
Since the book started to be separated from the Church , it at once gave the reason for the divisions and disunity, those bad fruits who are totally in opposition to the Spirit of this book.
Even those who believed that the book is ‘‘self-authenticated’’-could not prove it by examination.
Because the book itself does not allow for a final , definitive, interpretation of any given passage of Scripture.
None of the original manuscripts is extant. ( Some sincere devout, and learned Christians doubted the canonicity of some books which are now in the Bible,and others considered books of Scripture which were not at length included in the canon)
The manuscripts themselves contain thousands of variations.
There are also hundreds of Bible versions today.
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
Please tell me that you don’t mean that last line to be taken literally. That it was just a poor choice of words.Brian , I think the Christ left the Church not the book.
The book came later , as the Church tradition.
And it was not meant to be read apart from the Church.
Certainly you would want scripture to be read in many places outside of the Church, whether by Church you meant a building used for worship, the congregation gathered to worship, the congregation sent in ministry, the body of Christ in the world, or even if you just meant that organization called the Catholic Church. Please, tell you want scripture to be read in other places than just these places that, depending on one’s use of the term, might be described as the Church.
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
But not because they are the findings of the RCC, but because even the RCC does also get some things right there is sometimes agreement.Odd, is it not, that Protestants accept verbatim the findings of the RCC regarding NT Scripture.
P
paarsurrey
Guest
HiCan a Protestant on the board recommend me a good website, book, or article that thoroughly explains (rather than defends) sola scriptura (or, if one of you wants to give it a shot here, go ahead)? I want to know EXACTLY what you mean by it. Obviously, I don’t think most Protestants (though maybe a few do) mean that we put aside our reason and the basic principles of logic, or that we should look at scripture wholly without considering the history of Christian philosophy and theology. I just want a clear definition that fits the standard protestant mold.
I am not a Protestant, I am an Ahmadi. I would like to share my views here. I understand that Sola Scriptura is one of the Major issues between my Protestant friends and my Catholic friends.
The true Catholics, in my opinion, should follow Jesus not anyone else:
- For the religious text whether written or verbal that which is from the direct mouth of Jesus, should be given preference over anything said or written by anybody else whosoever.
- The practices should be also from the deeds of Jesus, on whom he had done a continuous performance, without break say daily, weekly etc basis and he has set his followers on to it before his disappearance.
- The history or tradition cannot replace #1 and #2 above, these could be respected if these are in line with #1 and #2 above, otherwise rejected.
Jesus must be preferred, that is my view in nutshell.
Thanks
A
Athanasiy
Guest
Yes , poor choice of words.Please tell me that you don’t mean that last line to be taken literally. That it was just a poor choice of words.
Certainly you would want scripture to be read in many places outside of the Church, whether by Church you meant a building used for worship, the congregation gathered to worship, the congregation sent in ministry, the body of Christ in the world, or even if you just meant that organization called the Catholic Church. Please, tell you want scripture to be read in other places than just these places that, depending on one’s use of the term, might be described as the Church.
Yes, Scripture can be read in many places outside of the Church.
The Scripture can be read every where.
I mean that Scripture is the Church book.
It was the Church who preserved the Scripture intact for a 1400 years.
How can this book be used by some ones as anti-Church , if the Church, decided the canon, preserved and revered the Scripture profoundly for so many years ?
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
J
jimmy85
Guest
I think that if the church was meant to be invisible, Jesus shouldnt have mentioned that he gave the autority of the church to Peter.Please tell me that you don’t mean that last line to be taken literally. That it was just a poor choice of words.
Certainly you would want scripture to be read in many places outside of the Church, whether by Church you meant a building used for worship, the congregation gathered to worship, the congregation sent in ministry, the body of Christ in the world, or even if you just meant that organization called the Catholic Church. Please, tell you want scripture to be read in other places than just these places that, depending on one’s use of the term, might be described as the Church.
Because there is no real church.
N
Nino
Guest
One such explanation on the world-wide Family Radio Network,by its president Harold Camping, which he repeated over and over again was simply this:
The Bible alone and in its entirety is the word of God.
That’s it. In other words, There is no authority other than the Bible, according to him.
As an example, after the resurrection, Acts 20:17 says the apostles meeting on “the first day of the week.”
So, that, and nothing else, is the justification for Christian worship on Sunday, rather than the Sabbath. Now, you and I would point out that the apostles were meeting and breaking bread on Sunday BEFORE that verse was written, but Camping was insensitive to that. He wouldn’t acknowledge that the Word of God was in an oral tradition before it was written down, or anything like that.
He also uses Rev 22:18 about 'not adding to the words of this book(or scroll)" in the broadest possible way, meaning not to look for or assert any divine revelation outside of “this book” that is the Bible.
I would know exactly what to quote from Martin Luther, but I believe that he was one of the “big guns” for SS.
N
Nino
Guest
as far as know,Jesus only wrote a few words on sand! If Jesus had wanted to leave His teachings in written form He would have invented the printing press!!! Instead He left a chair in Rome…and whomever sits in that Chair acts for him in certain faith and moral challenges. Since the various books,diaries,letters,etc were not assembled into one book (biblia)form until the council at Carthage in 397ad…that means millions of persons were converted into the Church founded by Jesus before they ever saw any scripture. A village deemed itself fortunate if it owned one handwritten bible.it was usually chained up for safe keeping…the ‘reformers’ spelled destroyers…have sneered for centuries that the RCC kept the bible chained so that no one would read it…etc etc…and so -called ‘holy spirit’ that was to guide readers of the good book towards Truth seems bewildered…for there are what…some 40,000 various protestant sects now…each claiming to own the Truth? Sad…Jesus declared…“I am the Way,and etc…” He founded One Church and promised to be with it till the end of time (was that a movie or song) and He has been…amen and amen…Nino
E
estesbob
Guest
It was interesing that he could not make the case that Scuipture itself supported Sola Scriptura not did he offer any proof that this Doctrine was around before the so called reformation. He did make a nice case tha we could trust Scripture-how nice.
I guess believing in Sola Scriptura can only be proved by Faith alone.
A
Athanasiy
Guest
According to the St.Paul in 1Tim3:15 - the Church is above the Bible.
B
BrianH
Guest
I do not think you have a single tradition, that Protestants and Catholicis disagree on, that comes before the last book of the Bible, Revelation in around 85-90 AD, that can be proven to have an apostolic origin. Thus the disagreement.Brian , I think the Christ left the Church not the book.
The book came later , as the Church tradition.
And it was not meant to be read apart from the Church.
A
Athanasiy
Guest
The Christian tradition wasn’t divorced from the Scripture in the Church fathers writings and their followers.
The Bible is a part of the Christian tradition itself.
The New Testament was neither written nor received as a Bible at first, but only gradually so.
Therefore for the early Christians Your idea of the Bible Alone is strange.
The Bible is a part of the Christian tradition itself.
The New Testament was neither written nor received as a Bible at first, but only gradually so.
Therefore for the early Christians Your idea of the Bible Alone is strange.
B
BrianH
Guest
When did I say I was Bible alone? What are you talking about?The Christian tradition wasn’t divorced from the Scripture in the Church fathers writings and their followers.
The Bible is a part of the Christian tradition itself.
The New Testament was neither written nor received as a Bible at first, but only gradually so.
Therefore for the early Christians Your idea of the Bible Alone is strange.
And on a side note, you have access to the same writings I do about what was received when in terms of acceptance. “Received as a Bible” is not the point and I am not sure why you phrased it that way. The first books of the New Testament were being written within twenty years of Christ’s resurrection
On another side note, I completely agree with your first sentence That is actually a point Protestant apologists make.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.