R
Rightlydivide
Guest
I have never said that the Roman Catholic church does not believe they have the right to interpret scripture…once again why are you saying THAT?
- Status
P
peary
Guest
Then what is the thrust of your postings? Please clarify.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
We are discussing why the canon is the canon.
C
cfrancis
Guest
wrong on both points. PM me and I’ll tell you what I do for a living!
Interesting. I better understand your argument.
Can we find evidence for usage by Christian Churches and/or patristic support for books that end up in the canon?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Evidence by usage- pretty good
Patristic support-lots. But they conflict you know. Eusebius has some interesting comments. Irenaeus is a gold mine. Ignatius and Polycarp include quotes but not the name of the books. Clement as well. And so forth. You can build a strong proximate cause argument, knock yourself out! Im sticking with mine. It has worked! Not so well around here though…
C
cfrancis
Guest
Sorry, RD. The above is what I meant to say.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
The Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Gospel of Barnabas but not really. No. That is really about it except for a few isolated cases here and there.
C
cfrancis
Guest
So the cases do exist…which for me means supporting canonicity’s proximate cause as “Evidence by usage…[and] Patristic support” is weak.
We need a proximate cause that is unique to the canon of Scripture.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
YOU need one cfancis; not me. If you have a good one that is bringing people to the Lord; good for you.
C
cfrancis
Guest
I’m trying to understand the substance behind your position.
We both begin with God’s sovereignty.
From there, you appear to have a “it’s Scripture because it’s in the Bible, and it’s in the Bible because it’s Scripture” argument.
P
peary
Guest
Simply stated, without going into elaborate detail, what is your theory again on this?
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
I said way back in post #46:
I then asked:
In other words, I asked to be taught about this. I am, essentially, the student, and anyone who answers the question is, essentially, the teacher. I came to find information.
You started answering my posts, which I assumed meant you were taking on the role of teacher. But now, instead of answering my question, you seem to want me to take on the role of the teacher and answer the question myself. If I knew the answer, I would not have asked the question in the first place.
And I’m not here to discuss the Catholic Church. That’s not what I asked about. I asked how someone *who rejects the authority of the Catholic Church *(that is, a non-Catholic) knows what the canon is. My question is still on the table. If you don’t know the answer, please say so.
(BTW, I never said the above bolded words. Please do not put words in my mouth.)
Regarding the gospel of Thomas, am I right that you contend there’s no way apologetics can dismiss it from scripture? There’s no way to tell it isn’t the Word of God? Is this sort of pickle really what God intends to leave us in?
P
peary
Guest
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Kaycee
I can tell my posts have not answered your questions. I tried to lay the framework by giving a hypothetical conversation to explain the futility of classical apologetics which leads to examing a differing option which is presuppositional apologetics. It has obviously failed and I greatly apologize. My futility is personally frustrating to me. I am a better soul winner than apologist. I will learn my lesson soon I hope. I know that is the case and why I persist in engaging in the one is beyond me. Quite frankly, I stink at it!
Take care
I can tell my posts have not answered your questions. I tried to lay the framework by giving a hypothetical conversation to explain the futility of classical apologetics which leads to examing a differing option which is presuppositional apologetics. It has obviously failed and I greatly apologize. My futility is personally frustrating to me. I am a better soul winner than apologist. I will learn my lesson soon I hope. I know that is the case and why I persist in engaging in the one is beyond me. Quite frankly, I stink at it!
Take care
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
Okay, at least that’s honest. Thank you very much for that.
Perhaps this is a point in your Christian journey when you’ll want to ask yourself some questions like how we know the correct canon. Perhaps the Holy Spirit led you to this forum for that very reason. It’s terrific that you’re leading so many to Christ! Surely, however, you want those people not only to embrace Christianity but to remain Christian.
This is why we sometimes have to get into these sort of “nitpicky” questions. We can see from many examples in history how folks can all too easily be led into heresy, so it’s essential that we know correct doctrine. Since scripture backs up doctrine, it’s pretty darn important that we have the correct scripture too. After all, souls are at stake.
I wish you the very best in your search. Don’t worry too much about your skill as an apologist. I’m not so hot at it either (you’ll notice I ask questions a lot but am not so great at debating them–and I’ve been studying apologetics for 12 years!)
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
Based upon what, exactly? This, as you say, was your *first *book of apologetics, yet you assumed its author was right . . . based on what? Since it was your first book, you couldn’t have yet compared his writings to other authors with other points of view that may disagree with his.
Actually, the more I study apologetics, the stronger and more firm my faith is.
If you mean bad fruit, I would argue that reasoning doesn’t produce it. Fallacious reasoning would, but that’s not true reasoning.
Conversions are always done by the Holy Spirit. You get no argument from me there!
Ah, but ***how ***was it given? How did God communicate it? (But, that, of course, is the question we’ve been discussing, isn’t it?)
I wouldn’t say the canon is a *result *of the Church’s authority. I would say it’s a result of God communicating His will to the Church.
I put “nitpicky” in quotes for a reason. I think the questions are valuable, but they can seem nitpicky to some.
Well, of course I hope you find only good, but if you find bad, let’s hope even that brings you closer to Christ. I’ve been persecuted for my faith (not by you!), but it always brings me closer to Him.
May God bless you in your faith journey.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
M
mdcpensive1
Guest
Don’t know if I should add another 2 cents worth, but here goes in trying to describe how scripture came about.
My understanding is that OT scriptures were a way of God communicating His desires and knowledge of Himself to the chosen people. As they knew more of Him, grew in “stature” and population, they were being formed to recognize His existence as onipitant and all powerful, and ultimately to recognize the coming of the prophesied Savior, the Christ.
Along the way, prophets and Judges either ruled or taught things that were to bring back the misguided actions of the people such as idolotry and unfaithfulness. They were given laws to govern their actions for formation. These were put into written form sometime in the past and we now call them the OT.
This same concept is followed in the NT, but with the development that Christ Himself gave instruction in the form of oral tradition that He said must be preached. Written documents were also sent to give understanding and correct wrong interpretations such as some of the epistles.
Therefore, God communicated what He wanted us to know by His revelation to the Church and the Church has the authority to interpret the words and pass it on to the rest of the world. This is where the books of the bible came from. It is the revelation of God Himself in the oral tradition given to the Church which some people then put into written form.
RightlyDivide just says that it is God’s sovereignty which is a vague concept but not necessarily wrong. Just vague. It does start and always continue with God. I say that the cannon of scripture are just books that were written by men conveying the truths of the Church that were already oral tradition. The Church in her authority has the obligation to root through writings to see which ones convey the message that Christ wanted us to know since the Church is the only body given the gift of speaking for Christ.
One can say that it is the graces God gave the Church to do this and call that Sovereignty, or one can say that the Church was using the authority given her and completing the task. The result seems to be the same.
mdcpensive1
My understanding is that OT scriptures were a way of God communicating His desires and knowledge of Himself to the chosen people. As they knew more of Him, grew in “stature” and population, they were being formed to recognize His existence as onipitant and all powerful, and ultimately to recognize the coming of the prophesied Savior, the Christ.
Along the way, prophets and Judges either ruled or taught things that were to bring back the misguided actions of the people such as idolotry and unfaithfulness. They were given laws to govern their actions for formation. These were put into written form sometime in the past and we now call them the OT.
This same concept is followed in the NT, but with the development that Christ Himself gave instruction in the form of oral tradition that He said must be preached. Written documents were also sent to give understanding and correct wrong interpretations such as some of the epistles.
Therefore, God communicated what He wanted us to know by His revelation to the Church and the Church has the authority to interpret the words and pass it on to the rest of the world. This is where the books of the bible came from. It is the revelation of God Himself in the oral tradition given to the Church which some people then put into written form.
RightlyDivide just says that it is God’s sovereignty which is a vague concept but not necessarily wrong. Just vague. It does start and always continue with God. I say that the cannon of scripture are just books that were written by men conveying the truths of the Church that were already oral tradition. The Church in her authority has the obligation to root through writings to see which ones convey the message that Christ wanted us to know since the Church is the only body given the gift of speaking for Christ.
One can say that it is the graces God gave the Church to do this and call that Sovereignty, or one can say that the Church was using the authority given her and completing the task. The result seems to be the same.
mdcpensive1
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
I think we’ve come to the end of the discussion.
I know the Catholic answer to the canon question, but I still am lacking a Protestant answer.
I will continue the search, but on another day.
I know the Catholic answer to the canon question, but I still am lacking a Protestant answer.
I will continue the search, but on another day.
- Status