John Martignoni's new tract on Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter Church_Militant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RevDon said:
I’m not really sure what you are getting at, Coptic Christian.
The protocanonical books were widely but not universally accepted by Christians as being in the canon.
I’m not sure that we can prove anything is the word of God, but on faith and in good will, we accept the established canon (s).
Click to expand...
Rev,

The Protocanonicals are missing the DC. Do you agree that they were removed?

Do we accept the canon because the OHCAC says so or some other reason?
 
Is this what you mean?
The term deuterocanonical is sometimes used to describe the canonical antilegomena, those books of the New Testament which, like the deuterocanonicals of the Old Testament, were not universally accepted by the early Church, but which are now included in the 27 books of the New Testament recognized by almost all Christians. The deuterocanonicals of the New Testament are as follows:
The Epistle to the Hebrews
The Epistle of James
The Second Epistle of Peter
The Second Epistle of John
The Third Epistle of John
The Epistle of Jude
The Apocalypse of John (also known as the Book of Revelation)
I accept these.
What’s your point?
 
John_Martignoni said:
Actually, Sacred Tradition is also considered to be the Word of God.
Click to expand...
But that’s my point!

Sacred Tradition is where we got the Bible from: the canon of the Scriptures was known to the Church from the Apostles, with the Church transmitting (handing on/down) these sacred resources from generation to generation. With the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church was able to discern authoritatively and certainly which books already in her possession from the Apostles were wholly inspired by the Holy Spirit as Public Revelation, and therefore also true Word of God, and which were secondary to it (e.g., Pope St. Clement’s Letters to the Corinthians that they, apparently, thought were inspired Word of God on the same level of authority as the letters of the Apotles, e.g.).

The Word of God is, first and foremost, a Person: i.e., not a “something” but a living “Someone”. Scripture and Tradition, then, are just the heads and tails of a singular coin that has its sacred value because its substance is something divine: i.e., the Word of God; and it is legal tender because it is stamped or sealed by that same authority (Apostolic tradition and the Magisterium).

Protestants and Catholics agree that the Word of God is the ultimate source of all authority and also an irreproachable authority: realizing that we are talking ultimately about a Someone and not a something will help a long way toward reconciliation and agreement.
 
1AugustSon7 said:
But that’s my point!

Sacred Tradition is where we got the Bible from: the canon of the Scriptures was known to the Church from the Apostles, with the Church transmitting (handing on/down) these sacred resources from generation to generation. With the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church was able to discern authoritatively and certainly which books already in her possession from the Apostles were wholly inspired by the Holy Spirit as Public Revelation, and therefore also true Word of God, and which were secondary to it (e.g., Pope St. Clement’s Letters to the Corinthians that they, apparently, thought were inspired Word of God on the same level of authority as the letters of the Apotles, e.g.).

The Word of God is, first and foremost, a Person: i.e., not a “something” but a living “Someone”. Scripture and Tradition, then, are just the heads and tails of a singular coin that has its sacred value because its substance is something divine: i.e., the Word of God; and it is legal tender because it is stamped or sealed by that same authority (Apostolic tradition and the Magisterium).

Protestants and Catholics agree that the Word of God is the ultimate source of all authority and also an irreproachable authority: realizing that we are talking ultimately about a Someone and not a something will help a long way toward reconciliation and agreement.
Click to expand...
Well put!
 
RevDon said:
Is this what you mean?
The term deuterocanonical is sometimes used to describe the canonical antilegomena, those books of the New Testament which, like the deuterocanonicals of the Old Testament, were not universally accepted by the early Church, but which are now included in the 27 books of the New Testament recognized by almost all Christians. The deuterocanonicals of the New Testament are as follows:
The Epistle to the Hebrews
The Epistle of James
The Second Epistle of Peter
The Second Epistle of John
The Third Epistle of John
The Epistle of Jude
The Apocalypse of John (also known as the Book of Revelation)
I accept these.
What’s your point?
Click to expand...
I think you have this inverted. The DCs we call refer to the 7 books removed by protestants in the OT, not the NT…which protestants refer to as the Apochrypa.
 
pablope said:
I think you have this inverted. The DCs we call refer to the 7 books removed by protestants in the OT, not the NT…which protestants refer to as the Apochrypa.
Click to expand...
Note my reference that there were also deuterocanonical books in the OT.

I was seeking clarification from CopticChristian concerning what he meant by use of the term so I might respond to his earlier question.

You are quite correct, and probably the books to which you refer are what he meant, but then there are also those books published in the popular volume called Lost Books of the Bible which, while having some influence in Christianity at least until the 17th century (witness scenes sculpted on Medieval cathedrals) were not included in the canon.
 
:eek::eek::eek:
RevDon said:
Note my reference that there were also deuterocanonical books in the OT.

I was seeking clarification from CopticChristian concerning what he meant by use of the term so I might respond to his earlier question.

You are quite correct, and probably the books to which you refer are what he meant, but then there are also those books published in the popular volume called Lost Books of the Bible which, while having some influence in Christianity at least until the 17th century (witness scenes sculpted on Medieval cathedrals) were not included in the canon.
Click to expand...
:eek:
 
JonNC said:
Scripture is the sole (alone) rule and norm by which we hold accountable all teachings and doctrines, a practice of the Church, not of individuals. It doesn’t exclude doctrines and dogma, or even teachers. By implication, the confessions recognize the necessity of Tradtion.
Click to expand...
JonNC said:
In short, the"sola" in sola scriptura is simply that we hold scripture to be the “sole” final norm. It doesn’t exclude Tradition, not by any means. The “sola” only means that Tradition - councils, creeds, confessions - are held secondary and accountable to scripture.
Click to expand...
Jon, it’s points like yours above that seems to render the protestant doctrine of perspicuity moot. I don’t know how much of the westminister confession you would agree with, but it says :

“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all (2 Pet. 3:16); yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them (Ps. 119:105, 130).”

I am assuming you would at least agree with that.

Putting two and two together, it seems to me that the picture of protestantism really gets down to is, the congregation is to rely on their leaders to accurately interpret scripture.

What is the point in teaching that scripture is perspicuous if the congregant must rely on the “Church” to determine if a teaching is contrary to scripture or not?
 
hapaxparadidomi said:
Jon, it’s points like yours above that seems to render the protestant doctrine of perspicuity moot. I don’t know how much of the westminister confession you would agree with, but it says :

“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all (2 Pet. 3:16); yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them (Ps. 119:105, 130).”

I am assuming you would at least agree with that.

Putting two and two together, it seems to me that the picture of protestantism really gets down to is, the congregation is to rely on their leaders to accurately interpret scripture.

What is the point in teaching that scripture is perspicuous if the congregant must rely on the “Church” to determine if a teaching is contrary to scripture or not?
Click to expand...
I tend to lean toward Martin Chemnitz on the matter.
“This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages.”
And,
“We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.”

Personally, I see the proper practice for Lutherans, in terms of doctrine, as being held to the confessions.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top