He is ashamed to answer you because he knows that God communicates it to His Church, the Catholic Church, and that that the ONLY way for those outside The Church to get it is to steal it and hijack it and claim it as theirs.
Isn’t that everybody’s “official stance?” Protestant scholars recognize the role of the Church in establishing the canon.
Because we differ on what the word church means in some areas our agreement is similar but not exact.
The problem is that you seem reluctant to understand my presuppositions and without that; inane questions USUALLY follow but lets be optimistic. You seem nice.
Many Protestants believe that the Church of the councils ratified the canon, and had the authority. They claim that after the canon was set, the Church was no longer needed as a cohesive body united by its bishops and “fell away” as “the pillar and ground of truth” to be replaced by the scriptures. (R.C. Sproul)
Any apologist who claims that Hippo or Carthage set the canon for the entire church would have to explain why Hippo and Carthage did not set the canon for the ENTIRE church though. I would think.
I can’t second guess Dr. Sproul. But it is interesting that he believes the canon was set by the councils, yet (if I understand correctly) he rejects the Deuterocanonical books.
When you say ratified by Rome…you mean all the bishops, not just Rome…right? “They” needed to confirm it. Just to clarify.
The councils of Hippo and Carthage were not ecumenical councils. But the decisions of the councils were sent to Rome for ratification because of its pre-eminent position, already recognized at that time.
Actually, ratification of the complete Canon of Scripture didn’t happen officially until the Council of Trent. Then it became standard for the Church.
Is that an all-inclusive statement; that is, is the Holy Spirit the only way God communicates with us?
What about OT books not quoted in, cited by or referred to in the NT. Does that count against their canonicity?
Your questions are based on an a priori assumption: the NT books are inspired. How do you know, for example, the Gospel of Matthew is inspired by God?
We also see the NT writers quoting and citing authoritatively from non-Scriptural sources. By your reasoning, those sources should be considered Scripture.
Back to the question that comes before your conclusion: how do you know the Gospels are inspired? After all, as you say, we must know what comes before to understand what comes after. And as nothing in the text of, say, the Gospel of Mark states its inspiration, you are drawing your conclusion from some source. What is that source?
While this is true, it is something of a technicality since the canon was not changed at Trent; it was just put into the proceedings of an ecumenical council so that no doubt would linger about its authenticity. I believe the canon ratifyng the canon (
) even uses language like “so that there can be no doubt.”Well, thanks for the compliment, but I don’t see how my question was inane. I asked what method God uses, but you gave me an answer about what *you *do, not what *God *does.
Since the Holy Spirit is God, your answer seems to be “God communicates through the use of God.” Forgive me, but this doesn’t answer the question either. I’m not asking who does the communicating but rather how the communication is done.
Presuppositonal apologetics ARE a priori you should know that.
It was sent to ALL the bishops for approval; not just one. It needed them all. That is what it says as you know. Without getting too deep into Peterine primacy and what not.
I said “if.” You confirm that the history is clean. No “if” required.
Oh, I do. It’s not often one sees an argument based upon a presupposition so far removed from a starting point.
Sure.
Well, you haven’t answered my question, but now I’m even more confused.
