It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[JustaServant]

Still, no one has shown me where the Bible tells me that everything that I believe and practice as a Christian, must be found in its pages. If such scripture exists, and not the interpretations of men using proof texts that do not say what they assert they do, then where are they? :ehh:

There appears to be a kind of circle here.

I think you more than proved your point CM. Adherants of SS must use circular reasoning to defend their position.
Maybe one example would help. Abortion. Liberal Christians often say: ‘well, Jesus never talks about abortion’, using the same kind of SS argument Protestants use. Yet not one conservative Protestant can tell us why they are against abortion from the scriptures, the word is not there (though the practice is ancient). They do not want to admit that their opposition to it comes directly from the Catholic Church handed down from tradition.

 

[sandyelder]

There are no more new revelations…

The CC teaches that revelation is closed;

Revelation was closed during the apostolic age;

Revelation ended.

Please provide a biblical reference for the cessation of revelation. If God is the same yesterday, today and forever, why would God cease to do what He has always done - use prophets/revelation to prepare a people? Even the RCC believes revelation will begin again as the time nears for Christ’s return. The NT has end-of-times references to prophets. Clearly the Pope does not believe the RCC has prophetic authority, as it has never been invoked in the history of the Church. How/where will these prophets arise and will the Church view them as heretics teaching “new” revelation?

I believe you and others are being semantically dishonest when discussing “revelation”. You deny it exists, yet fall back on inspiration from the HS (God) which clarifies and expands the Deposit of Faith. How can new understanding be added without revelation either individually or to the Church? Such new understanding must come from God or be definitionally false. How can God reveal without revelation?

Without revelation, anything beyond SS is suspect. One cannot claim the HS is guiding the RCC without acknowledging that such guidance is revelatory in nature. Parsing whether revelation is new or public or whatever is simply to acknowledge the possibility while denying the existence. The impasse arises when the RCC asserts Tradition or some other foundation as a work-around for doctrine not clearly laid out by the apostles in the canon as adopted.

Which also begs the question of why, since the RCC had access to both the writings of the apostles and the extant of tradition, they did not canonize it all at the same time. It also begs the question of why there are no more apostles. Therefore, impasse.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I wrote:

quoted from qui est ce:

You didn’t answer my questions, only posed some of your own, but that’s ok.

By your response I see you can tell what I was getting at.

 

[qui_est_ce]

The RCC did not decide what books were “Scripture,” there merely was a council which convened to put together the books which were already considered scripture.

The RCC declares the scriptures were officially canonized at the Council of Hippo in 390 AD. But they have some problems with this.

First, who ever said the Council of Hippo was a Roman Catholic council? It consisted only of North African pastors. Rome had nothing to do with it. Second, we see from recorded christian history that many years before Hippo in 390 AD, the scriptures were already recognized.

315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of all New Testament books except Revelation.

These 7 books were included in all approved Bible translations, including the Gutenberg Catholic Bible.

1. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed fifty copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.

185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.

165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John.] In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.

160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John./B]

135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.

100-147. Justin Martyr,** mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.**

The Latin Vulgate has extra books which were never a part of the Hebrew Scriptures.The Apostle Paul declared that the “Oracles of God” were committed to the Jews. (Rom. 3:1,2; 9:4,5) They had the scriptures in its purity. Even Jerome said the apocrypha did not belong in the Bible. The RCC added these uninspired spurious books as a counter reaction to the Reformation.
Pope St Damasus I commissioned Saint Jerome to translate earlier Latin versions of the Bible into the Vulagate, or common spoken Latin, so everyone could read and understand the Bible. St. Jerome was also his confidential secretary for some time. This new canon of the New Testament was** proclaimed by him in the Roman synod of 374**.

St Jerome disputed the 7 books of the Deuterocanonical books, because there were no no Hebrew texts at the time. Eventually St. Jerome submitted to the Pope, and included these 7 books.

At the Council of Jamnia, approx 90 AD, Jewish rabbis met and discarded these 7 books, possibly as a reaction to Christianity, which considered them sacred. The Hebrew texts have since been discovered at Qumran in 1947.

St Jerome’s study of the Hebrew texts and discussions with rabbis caused him to rethink his position that these 7 books were inspired. The Septuagint version was made from a much older, and at times much purer, Hebrew text than the one in use at the end of the fourth century.

St Jerome was a great scholar, but he was in error about the Septuagint.

 

[qui_est_ce]

An important point must be made. We do not believe in Jesus, Abraham, the Resurrection, Crucifixion just because the Bible says so. We believe it because the Apostles believed it and told it. It was not until 40 years after the death of Jesus that some of the events of the NT (the Gospels) were even written. They had to been written because people started teaching different gospels. The purpose of the epistles was to correct misunderstanding and heresy.

 

[Lev23]

I would much appreciate it if someone one, (especially you who are n-Cs) would display and clarify for me just precisely where it is in the Word of God that it specifically states that everything that Christians believe and practice must be found within its pages.

The reason I am posting this is because I have read the Bible (all 73 books of it!) many times and have yet to find anything that supports this idea. I have concluded that the Catholic Church is correct in teaching that the Bible does not say this and therefore it is error.
I want all of us Catholics to understand that this is a fundamental doctrinal error of some communities of n-C Christianity and so there is no reason to get distressed when someone comes at you with this stuff, because the fact of the matter is …it’s NOT in the Bible itself.

I would like to point out that all Christian Churches, whether their “bibles” have 66 or 73 books in them, all share a heritage that is Jewish, or Israeli. God always has a remnant of His chosen people saved. When Jesus established His church, the remnant of Israel was there. We can all agree that before Jesus the Messiah was born, the Torah, or the book of the Law was the scriptures the Israelites were to follow. The prophetic and historical writings of the Hebrews show clearly how important the written scriptures were to the nation of Israel. An example of this from the historical writings is 2 Kings 22-23. An example of this from the prophetic writings can be found in Nehemiah 8-9.

A simple reading from the book of the Law made King Josiah tear his robes. It is amazing to know from 2 Kings 22 and 23 that there was a prophet of God they could of gone to at any time for the Word of God, but it was the written Word of God that started King Josiah towards repentence!

From Nehemiah, the remnant that came back from Babylon listened and learned from the Word of God.
**Nehemiah 8:1-4
all the people assembled as one man in the square before the Water Gate. They told Ezra the scribe to bring out the Book of the Law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded for Israel.

So on the first day of the seventh month Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, which was made up of men and women and all who were able to understand. He read it aloud from daybreak till noon as he faced the square before the Water Gate in the presence of the men, women and others who could understand. And all the people listened attentively to the Book of the Law. **

from verses 7-8
The Levites—Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan and Pelaiah—instructed the people in the Law while the people were standing there. They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people could understand what was being read.

Notice how it did not take a bible school or a degree in theology for the remnant to learn in a day what the Torah clearly taught. Now I am not against traditions, for even those that claim they don’t hold to traditions, fact is they do. Having a set canon of scripture is a tradition, etc. But things went bad for Israel when the oral and sacred traditions of men were brought up to the level of God’s Word. “Fence laws” were put on the people to help them avoid breaking God’s Laws, so the matter of the Law was completely lost upon the people. When Jesus came to Israel, he told them he did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets, but fulfill them. Jesus told Israel everything He said He would do when the New Covenant would come to them. He came to write the law on their hearts, He spoke of loving God first and loving their neighbors as themselves.
Jeremiah 31:33
“This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
Jesus’ Apostles taught on in the same manner-
**Romans 13:8-10
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

James 2:8-9
If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.**

In the OT writings, when God spoke to Israel on how they failed, He brought up how the fatherless and widows were not being taking care of. God spoke of Israel’s problem polluting themselves with the nations. And yet, the Apostle James, who addresses his epistle to “the twelve tribes scattered among the nations”, has this to say-
James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

My point is that the written Word of God does essentially contain everything. Jews who are not Christians continue on without the Apostles witness report of the Messiah who came in the flesh and died for their sins, was resurrected and ascended back to the Father, all foretold by the scriptures they were to live by. The Church is a continuation of the remnant of Israel(now with Jew and Gentile as one new creation in Jesus), under Grace and filled with the Holy Spririt, who always lived by the written scriptures.

 

[joe370]

sandyelder - Please provide a biblical reference for the cessation of revelation.

**I cannot provide you with the biblical reference for the cessation of revelation to Jesus’ one church! **

If God is the same yesterday, today and forever, why would God cease to do what He has always done - use prophets/revelation to prepare a people?

**God is the same yesterday, today and forever…God didn’t cease to do what He has always done ; God gave us his Son, who gave us His church to teach and be his faithful witnesses, through the guidance of the holy spirit - (as the father sent me so I send you…) Jesus prepares us, and he does it through his church ministers of reconciliation. **

Even the RCC believes revelation will begin again as the time nears for Christ’s return.

**Elaborate…
**

The NT has end-of-times references to prophets.

**Are you referring to the book of revelations?
**

Clearly the Pope does not believe the RCC has prophetic authority, as it has never been invoked in the history of the Church. How/where will these prophets arise and will the Church view them as heretics teaching “new” revelation?

**Who are these prophets to which you are referring? **

I believe you and others are being semantically dishonest when discussing “revelation”.

**You are entitled to your opinion. **

You deny it exists, yet fall back on inspiration from the HS (God) which clarifies and expands the Deposit of Faith.

Clarifying and expanding revelation is not the same as establishing something new, e.g. sola scriptura. The trinity is a good example of clarifying and expanding to elucidate.

How can new understanding be added without revelation either individually or to the Church? Such new understanding must come from God or be definitionally false. How can God reveal without revelation?

**I don’t see why God couldn’t reveal something new to His Sons established church, as opposed to some new man-made church, but I will defer to the authority of Jesus’ one church:

*“Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.” Hebrews 13

---

Without revelation, anything beyond SS is suspect.

**So, you are saying: without revelation, anything other than SS is suspect? What about Jesus’ one church to which Jesus is the head and Savior and is forever guided by the holy spirit? That sure seems like a sure thing! To trust Jesus’ one church is to trust the holy spirit. To trust sola scriptura is to trust Martin Luther who removed 4 books from the N.T. to which his successors rightly put back. SS seems to be your benchmark. Is the holy spirit guiding Jesus’ one church or the bible alone via private interpretation?

**

One cannot claim the HS is guiding the RCC without acknowledging that such guidance is revelatory in nature.

**Marcionism was a Christian heresy which rejected the validity of the Old Testament and essentially denied the Trinity, claiming that Jesus had nothing to do with the First Person of the Trinity. Did SS via individual interpretation or Jesus’ Catholic church quash this heretical doctrine that could have potentially sullied the teachings of Jesus Christ. The holy spirit over time reveal this truth by clarifying and expanding it, just as he did at the various ecumenical councils.
**

Parsing whether revelation is new or public or whatever is simply to acknowledge the possibility while denying the existence.

**Was SS taught by the Apostles? If so, then why didn’t they simply hand out bibles, which of course didn’t exist?
**

The impasse arises when the RCC asserts Tradition or some other foundation as a work-around for doctrine not clearly laid out by the apostles in the canon as adopted.

**The impasse arises when all of the protestant churches assert their own Tradition or some other foundation, such as the 16th century reformation, as opposed to the foundation of the apostles and prophets of the first century, as a work-around for doctrine not clearly laid out by the apostles, via Jesus’ one church! Again, to trust sacred scripture and sacred tradition is to trust Jesus’ established church, which is to trust the holy spirit, Who is guiding Jesus’ one church until the end of time. Do you trust the holy spirit? If so then trust Jesus’ established church.
**

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Which also begs the question of why, since the RCC had access to both the writings of the apostles and the extant of tradition, they did not canonize it all at the same time. It also begs the question of why there are no more apostles. Therefore, impasse.

**2 Thes 2:15…Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our letter.

The Apostles taught via word and letter. What wasn’t committed to writing was committed to Jesus’ one church, and passed on to the next generation and safeguarded by the power of the holy spirit. St. lrenaeus in the second century told the people of his diocese not to worry about preachers from certain sects who were trying to tell them that the message of Jesus had a hidden and secret meaning. He assured them that what was publicly taught and handed down in the whole community of the faithful was what was important and central in the Church’s Tradition. He said they could always know what that was because, on these matters, all the local communities were in agreement and all their bishops vouched for it. It is when people break away from the church built by God that division rears it’s ugly head. We have 2 choices:

1. The authority of Jesus’ one church: As the father sent me so I send you…

Or

1. The authority of the bible alone via private/individual interpretation: As the father has sent me so I give the world the bible to interpret as they see fit.

Which one is a product of God? Which one has worked; which one has failed?

**

 

[JustaServant]

Please provide a biblical reference for the cessation of revelation. If God is the same yesterday, today and forever, why would God cease to do what He has always done - use prophets/revelation to prepare a people? Even the RCC believes revelation will begin again as the time nears for Christ’s return. The NT has end-of-times references to prophets. Clearly the Pope does not believe the RCC has prophetic authority, as it has never been invoked in the history of the Church. How/where will these prophets arise and will the Church view them as heretics teaching “new” revelation?

I believe you and others are being semantically dishonest when discussing “revelation”. You deny it exists, yet fall back on inspiration from the HS (God) which clarifies and expands the Deposit of Faith. How can new understanding be added without revelation either individually or to the Church? Such new understanding must come from God or be definitionally false. How can God reveal without revelation?

Without revelation, anything beyond SS is suspect. One cannot claim the HS is guiding the RCC without acknowledging that such guidance is revelatory in nature. Parsing whether revelation is new or public or whatever is simply to acknowledge the possibility while denying the existence. The impasse arises when the RCC asserts Tradition or some other foundation as a work-around for doctrine not clearly laid out by the apostles in the canon as adopted.

Which also begs the question of why, since the RCC had access to both the writings of the apostles and the extant of tradition, they did not canonize it all at the same time. It also begs the question of why there are no more apostles. Therefore, impasse.

In Scripture, the Apostles are asked to PREACH the Gospel, not write it. The Gospel is the Good News of Christ, not a book (or even four) and he commissioned the Apostles to proclaim it, not write it down. He provided the Spirit, because the Apostles and disciples were not able to bear everything that there was to be told.
So, the answer is yes, there is revelation beyond Sacred Scripture. Christ founded a Church with the Apostles and their successors to lead it on earth, and with the Holy Spirit to guide it to all Truth. Part of that Spirit’s guiding it was helping discern which books are sacred, inspired, and inerrant.
The Bible, which you would argue is the only revelation, is itself a product of that Spirit-led Apostolic Tradition.
Public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. What remains is understanding the full implications of the revelation–what are and are not logically and theologically correct developments of what that revelation means? That is how doctrine develops. It does not replace or contradict revelation, but rather grows naturally out of it. We have a living Church (thanks be to God), and growth and development are critical signs of its life.

 

[clmowry]

My point is that the written Word of God does essentially contain everything. Jews who are not Christians continue on without the Apostles witness report of the Messiah who came in the flesh and died for their sins, was resurrected and ascended back to the Father, all foretold by the scriptures they were to live by. The Church is a continuation of the remnant of Israel(now with Jew and Gentile as one new creation in Jesus), under Grace and filled with the Holy Spririt, who always lived by the written scriptures.

You seem to have left out the part where for most of old testament history Israel lived in the tradition handed down through the priests appointed by Moses (at Gods direction).

For very long periods of time we have no evidence that “sacred texts” existed at all. If they did, they certainly were not readily available to individual Jews, and frequently even the King and High Priest didn’t know where their apparently “only” copy had disappeared too.

When they really goofed things up, which seemed to be about every other generation on average, then God would send a prophet to straighten them out.

And the process would repeat itself.

I don’t really see how one could read the Old Testament and come away with the impression that Israel even notionally lived by the “book”.

They lived by the Law administered by the priests.

I don’t think the Old Testament, helps very much in putting forth the idea of “sola scriptura” or “prima scriptura”.

If anything it seems to me that it would put forth something more like “Prima Tradition” with a little scripture tossed in every few hundred years whether you need it or not.

Chuck

 

[twinc]

It is written in the Bible at Jn.20:31 and even Jesus relied on Scriptures to answer the devil “it is written,it is written,it is written” He said three times.Sadly as Catholics we tend to subordinate Scriptures[Bible].I know not why except that we have not yet realised the unity of Scriptures/Tradition/Magisterium - twinc

 

[twinc]

I think you more than proved your point CM. Adherants of SS must use circular reasoning to defend their position.
Maybe one example would help. Abortion. Liberal Christians often say: ‘well, Jesus never talks about abortion’, using the same kind of SS argument Protestants use. Yet not one conservative Protestant can tell us why they are against abortion from the scriptures, the word is not there (though the practice is ancient). They do not want to admit that their opposition to it comes directly from the Catholic Church handed down from tradition.

of course it is in the Scriptures but not understood “suffer little children to come unto me,forbid them not” and theirs’ the kingdom of heaven and it is one of the ten commandments “thou shall not kill” - twinc

 

[clmowry]

It is written in the Bible at Jn.20:31 and even Jesus relied on Scriptures to answer the devil “it is written,it is written,it is written” He said three times.Sadly as Catholics we tend to subordinate Scriptures[Bible].I know not why except that we have not yet realised the unity of Scriptures/Tradition/Magisterium - twinc

Cool, so a Catholic comes to the defense of Sola Scriptura. Somebody has to do it I guess.

Of course John 20:31 Doesn’t actually say anything about scipture being “above” Church and Tradition, or “everything” needing to be demonstrated from scripture.

“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book.
But these are written that you may (come to) believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name.”

Even if you wanted to take this verse to mean “Sola Scriptura” you would be left only with “Sola John” as the verse only references what He has written in this one book.

Chuck

 

[twinc]

An important point must be made. We do not believe in Jesus, Abraham, the Resurrection, Crucifixion just because the Bible says so. We believe it because the Apostles believed it and told it. It was not until 40 years after the death of Jesus that some of the events of the NT (the Gospels) were even written. They had to been written because people started teaching different gospels. The purpose of the epistles was to correct misunderstanding and heresy.

not so,not so for it seems Matthew wrote and made notes as he went along and his early Hebrew gospel was in circulation almost shortly after the resurrection and ascension and the gospel reached Britain around 36/37 - twinc

 

[Philthy]

I would like to point out that all Christian Churches, whether their “bibles” have 66 or 73 books in them, all share a heritage that is Jewish, or Israeli…
My point is that the written Word of God does essentially contain everything. Jews who are not Christians continue on without the Apostles witness report of the Messiah who came in the flesh and died for their sins, was resurrected and ascended back to the Father, all foretold by the scriptures they were to live by. The Church is a continuation of the remnant of Israel(now with Jew and Gentile as one new creation in Jesus), under Grace and filled with the Holy Spririt, who always lived by the written scriptures.

Did you forget that in the OT there were the seat of Moses, Scribes and Pharisees and the council of 72 elders that read and interpreted the Scriptures for the nation of Israel?? Didn’t Jesus even tell his disciples that they were to respect the authority of these individuals despite their hypocrisy??? Matt 23:3-4"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." This was his big chance to add in: " but they day will come where I will provide you my written word so that you will have no need of any teachers anymore…"…he never says that.
Not to mention the fact that not only was virtually everyone illiterate, but there were no copies of Scripture available even if they were. That didnt change until 1400 years after Christ died. That’s when all this SS talk began…

 

[Philthy]

Does the roman catholic magesterium believe it knows more than the Holy Spirit who authored the Holy Scriptures?

Of course not - only a slanderer or one hampered by ignorance would propose such a thing. Are you proposing the CC claims to “know more than the holy Spirit”?
If so, on what basis? I certainly didnt infer that from the statement you quoted in your response. The Church claims to be guided by the holy Spirit in accordance with Christ’s promise (John 16:13) and directive to teach all nations confident that He is with them every step of the way (Matt28:19-20).
Such comments reveal a profound ignorance and childish hostility toward the Church despite an abundance of information and “reproof” offered you. Despite my temptation to be angered and disheartened by such exchanges I trust God is working through them to produce good for those who’s hearts are truly open to hearing his voice.

Peace be with you!

 

[joe370]

I think you more than proved your point CM. Adherants of SS must use circular reasoning to defend their position.
Maybe one example would help. Abortion. Liberal Christians often say: ‘well, Jesus never talks about abortion’, using the same kind of SS argument Protestants use. Yet not one conservative Protestant can tell us why they are against abortion from the scriptures, the word is not there (though the practice is ancient). They do not want to admit that their opposition to it comes directly from the Catholic Church handed down from tradition.

Very good point!

 

[joe370]

Lev, you did not answer CM’s question; you said:

My point is that the written Word of God does essentially contain everything. Jews who are not Christians continue on without the Apostles witness report of the Messiah who came in the flesh and died for their sins, was resurrected and ascended back to the Father, all foretold by the scriptures they were to live by. The Church is a continuation of the remnant of Israel(now with Jew and Gentile as one new creation in Jesus), under Grace and filled with the Holy Spririt, who always lived by the written scriptures.

So, here’s the question again:

I would much appreciate it if someone one, (especially you who are n-Cs) would display and clarify for me just precisely where it is in the Word of God that it specifically states that everything that Christians believe and practice must be found within its pages.

The Bible was not put under one cover until 397 AD at the Council of Carthage. It took a monk 10 months to hand copy the Bible. Prior to the Bible being put under one cover, who was the authority figure for the early church? Remember, the Bible did not exist as we know it today. If you were a Christian for the first 300 years of Christianity, you would have obeyed your church leaders and defered to them just as your bible commands:

“Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

There is NO denying the fact that authority was Jesus church–not the Bible.

 

[CoachSTL]

While all y’all are back-slapping and high-fiving, can one or all or any of you please reconcile CCC 73 with your assertion that the HS, who is God, reveals anything anymore. If God is fully revealed in the Son, what more is there to reveal? And, if there is more, why would he not do it via a prophet (CCC 72)? One can not credibly claim the error of SS while also denying the continuance of revelation. One also can not credibly claim the HS mystically guides the RCC without acknowledging that such guidance constitutes revelation. Furthermore, if the HS is guiding the RCC, why would not God himself, at least on occasion, grant such revelation in the form and manner he used with Moses, Abraham, et al?

If one disputes SS, one must accept continuing revelation. If one disputes the reality of continuing revelation, SS is the only option, regardless of how the canon came to be. Therefore, impasse.

sandyelder

It is written in Sacred Scripture that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Protetants and Evangelical profess that the Bible alone is the authority of Christian teaching and the sole point of truth. For such a profound statement, why is it not written in the Bible anywhere?

coachstl

 

[Lev23]

Did you forget that in the OT there were the seat of Moses, Scribes and Pharisees and the council of 72 elders that read and interpreted the Scriptures for the nation of Israel?? Didn’t Jesus even tell his disciples that they were to respect the authority of these individuals despite their hypocrisy??? Matt 23:3-4"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." This was his big chance to add in: " but they day will come where I will provide you my written word so that you will have no need of any teachers anymore…"…he never says that.
Not to mention the fact that not only was virtually everyone illiterate, but there were no copies of Scripture available even if they were. That didnt change until 1400 years after Christ died. That’s when all this SS talk began…

Like I stated in my other post, the written Word was present for the Church already. The people of Israel had to listen to what written Torah said to do. They were not supposed to follow in the hypocrisy of those teachers. Jesus spoke alot of their hypocrisy. As far as this “interpretation” authoruty thing of the Moses seat, it is interesting to note, again, that the teachers of the Law in the OT could teach the entire Law in a single day, even while the people stood there and listened. When the teachers taught the Law as written, making it easy to understand, and would also walk the walk, the people should submit to their authority. This carries over to the shepards in the Church—

“Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.”