R
Reformed_Rob
Guest
Anima Christi:
“contrary to Scripture”
or do you mean
“not found in the Bible” ?
Most people take that term, **“unbiblical” **to mean “contrary to Scripture” and many pains are taken in Catholic apologetics to show that your beliefs and doctrines are not unbiblical.
While the details of some “age of accountability” may not be set forth in Scripture, the basics of it are there. Protestants do different things with it, based partly upon their understanding of original sin.
Sola Scriptura recognizes that man is given an intellect, and by the using his intellect under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, can come to conclusions based upon things contained in Scripture. In fact, it realizes that the Holy Spirit led people to overwhemingly see which books were “Scripture.” The OT Church is not viewed as “infallible” so neither is the NT Church, in the Sola Scriptura view. An infallible Church is not necessary for an infallible canon. Sola Scriptura affirms, basically, to quote the WMCoF, that man can know God’s truth based on things “either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.”
The Church, according to Sola Scriptura, can be fallible, but not everything it does or decides is therefore necessarily in error.
There was NO statement by the Church, at least that I’ve come across in my reading, until Trent, or possibly Council of Florence 100 years earlier, that would be considered infallible today addressing the Canon. Innocent I’s statement, in Denz. #96, and local synods in Hippo and Carthage in the 4th/5th centuries, would they be considered infallible?? Not today they wouldn’t. If anyone knows of something before Florence, please say, but **I’m trying to say that the Protestant view of Sola Scriptura fits quiet well with how the Church functioned alongside Scripture **for 1500 years, until the Reformation. Obviously, not all the same beliefs, but Scripture was settled, except for perhaps a few pockets of resistance.
**I’m not saying the Church was Protestant or believed “sola Scriptura” for 1500 years. ** I’m saying, that Protestants go on with the Scriptures (w/o the Deuterocanonicals, but there’s more than circumstantial reasons for that) as they were received for many centuries. Reformed Churches take very seriously the teaching of the Fathers. Just look, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Virgin birth, the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and Son, that’s all believed. And for Biblical reasons, other things Catholics believe are rejected.
By "unbiblical" do you mean
“contrary to Scripture”
or do you mean
“not found in the Bible” ?
Most people take that term, **“unbiblical” **to mean “contrary to Scripture” and many pains are taken in Catholic apologetics to show that your beliefs and doctrines are not unbiblical.
While the details of some “age of accountability” may not be set forth in Scripture, the basics of it are there. Protestants do different things with it, based partly upon their understanding of original sin.
Sola Scriptura recognizes that man is given an intellect, and by the using his intellect under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, can come to conclusions based upon things contained in Scripture. In fact, it realizes that the Holy Spirit led people to overwhemingly see which books were “Scripture.” The OT Church is not viewed as “infallible” so neither is the NT Church, in the Sola Scriptura view. An infallible Church is not necessary for an infallible canon. Sola Scriptura affirms, basically, to quote the WMCoF, that man can know God’s truth based on things “either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.”
The Church, according to Sola Scriptura, can be fallible, but not everything it does or decides is therefore necessarily in error.
There was NO statement by the Church, at least that I’ve come across in my reading, until Trent, or possibly Council of Florence 100 years earlier, that would be considered infallible today addressing the Canon. Innocent I’s statement, in Denz. #96, and local synods in Hippo and Carthage in the 4th/5th centuries, would they be considered infallible?? Not today they wouldn’t. If anyone knows of something before Florence, please say, but **I’m trying to say that the Protestant view of Sola Scriptura fits quiet well with how the Church functioned alongside Scripture **for 1500 years, until the Reformation. Obviously, not all the same beliefs, but Scripture was settled, except for perhaps a few pockets of resistance.
**I’m not saying the Church was Protestant or believed “sola Scriptura” for 1500 years. ** I’m saying, that Protestants go on with the Scriptures (w/o the Deuterocanonicals, but there’s more than circumstantial reasons for that) as they were received for many centuries. Reformed Churches take very seriously the teaching of the Fathers. Just look, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Virgin birth, the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and Son, that’s all believed. And for Biblical reasons, other things Catholics believe are rejected.
