The terms “pillar and foundation” speak to the strength of the church in providing a ground upon which the truth can be based.I figgered that. So in what way do you claim to believe the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth?
If you want to know what Calvinist’s belive I would google for the Westminster Confession of Faith or the London Baptist Confession…either one would be a good start.But what do Calvinists believe? I have had many and several debates with one Calvinist in particular who continually brings up the idea that we must no longer keep traditions because Jesus rejected them.
So, although Calvin kept some traditions, do his followers do so?
The Jews were entrusted w/ the oracles of God which would have been the OT, not the NT.Why should it matter why they rejected it? They rejected it around 100AD which makes it meaningless because they had already rejected Christ. If modern day Jews said that Luke was not scripture because Luke was not a Jew would you all of a sudden reject Luke?
They apostatized essentially which means they were no longer entrusted with the canons. They no longer had authority to judge the canon. If it had happened in 100BC that would have been one thing but it happened in 100AD.The Jews were entrusted w/ the oracles of God which would have been the OT, not the NT.
So what the Jews thought about the OT before Jesus no longer counts because of a later transgression?They apostatized essentially which means they were no longer entrusted with the canons. They no longer had authority to judge the canon. If it had happened in 100BC that would have been one thing but it happened in 100AD.
They can not define the canon after they abandon the truth. That would be like modern Christians letting people like John Dominic Crossan and many of the other modern bible ‘scholars’ define the true faith for us. These bible ‘scholars’ have abandoned the truth and no longer view it as scripture, why would the true faith be determined by them?So what the Jews thought about the OT before Jesus no longer counts because of a later transgression?
I am unaware of any evidence that the deutero books were considered as canonical by the Jews. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?They can not define the canon after they abandon the truth. That would be like modern Christians letting people like John Dominic Crossan and many of the other modern bible ‘scholars’ define the true faith for us. These bible ‘scholars’ have abandoned the truth and no longer view it as scripture, why would the true faith be determined by them?
It is true that it was through them that the prophets came but it was also through them that Christ came and it was from them that the apostles were chosen. They rejected Christ and the NT yet we are to accept their canon?
The fact that they were counted among the books of the scriptures in the Greek cities is proof itself. There isn’t proof for or against them having an opinion of the deuterocanonicals previous to Christ as far as I know. But the early Christian support of the LXX should be satisfactory to Christians. The fact that all the early Christians spoke highly of the septuagint, which included them, should be satisfactory.I am unaware of any evidence that the deutero books were considered as canonical by the Jews. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Yes, Thank you De Maria. Church is New Israel, and the rest of your sentence may be true. Jesus was a great Jew himself. He taught and guided very well.I’m glad you understand that the Catholic Church is the New Israel, and it is on the Catholic Church that all the promises to the people of the Old Testament are fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
The Church tells me so.Okay…how do you know this?
I know that Calvinist beliefs are wrong. Anytime you want to compare the Westminster Confession to the Bible, lets do so.If you want to know what Calvinist’s belive I would google for the Westminster Confession of Faith or the London Baptist Confession…either one would be a good start.
Yet Scripture says that Tradition is the Word of God. So, Scripture says that Tradition is also infallible:With regards to “tradition”, the reformed churches do not discount tradition but do not believe there is any source of revelation that is infallible other than scripture.
But creeds are considered extra biblical by many if not most of the reformed.I already referred to the creeds used in reformed churches.
Jesus was the greatest Jew, who fulfilled in Himself the Old Covenant and struck in His Blood the New Covenant.Yes, Thank you De Maria. Church is New Israel, and the rest of your sentence may be true. Jesus was a great Jew himself. He taught and guided very well.
That Scripture does not refer to a fallen pillar.The terms “pillar and foundation” speak to the strength of the church in providing a ground upon which the truth can be based.
I am guessing you and I would agree up to the point where you are likely going to read infallibility into the text.
Before we go any further can you clarify what you believe about apostolic tradition?Yet Scripture says that Tradition is the Word of God. So, Scripture says that Tradition is also infallible:
1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because,** when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, **which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
Well, it mentions nothing about infallibility.That Scripture does not refer to a fallen pillar.
Yes, they are in fact extra biblical, that’s not an issue. In fact, most of the churches which would fall under the reformed umbrella use creeds…at least as far as I know.But creeds are considered extra biblical by many if not most of the reformed.
**De Maria, Jesus did everything to save the Jews. There were no christians then. He went to the point of giving his life for the sake of truth. The present day christians have nothing in common with Jesus. They are following a false religion which they have invented for themselves.Jesus was the greatest Jew, who fulfilled in Himself the Old Covenant and struck in His Blood the New Covenant.
You have no idea the beauty of this in your false religion of Islam.
God loves us so much that He gave His only begotten Son to die for our salvation.
Jesus not only taught and guided, He died that we should live. By His death He destroyed our death, by His resurrection He restored our life.
Only God can do this.
Not true. The reformed confessions all have the apostles creed at the end.But creeds are considered extra biblical by many if not most of the reformed.
I believe you failed to understand De Maria’s statement!Originally Posted by De Maria
But creeds are considered extra biblical by many if not most of the reformed.
The Creeds (Nicene and Apostolic) are extra-biblical and part of Tradition derived from the teachings of the Apostles from Jesus.
While the content of the Creeds can be verified in sacred Scripture, they are from outside the Bible and thus extra-biblical